T v R [2012] EWCA Crim 2358 (07 November 2012)

T v R [2012] EWCA Crim 2358 (07 November 2012)

The judge erred in law by refusing to admit relevant evidence (photograph and Facebook entries) solely due to late disclosure; once relevance was established, the evidence should have been admitted, with lateness affecting weight, not admissibility. However, the provenance and context of the evidence require further examination before determining the safety of the verdict.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Crim 2358
Parties
Appellant: T; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Post Conviction, Appeal From Bristol Crown Court
Outcome
appeal adjourned for further hearing
Legal Topics
Advance Disclosure, Admissibility of Evidence, Cross Examination, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Criminal Procedure Rules
Criminal Law Evidence Advance Disclosure Admissibility of Evidence Cross Examination Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Rules

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Post Conviction, Appeal From Bristol Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to admit evidence (photograph and Facebook entries) due to lack of advance disclosure
  2. 2 Application of s.41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to admissibility of evidence relating to complainant's sexual behaviour
  3. 3 Impact of late disclosure on fairness of trial

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by refusing to admit relevant evidence (photograph and Facebook entries) solely due to late disclosure; once relevance was established, the evidence should have been admitted, with lateness affecting weight, not admissibility. However, the provenance and context of the evidence require further examination before determining the safety of the verdict.

Court Disposition

appeal adjourned for further hearing

Orders

  • Appellant to provide sworn statements of any evidence within 21 days
  • Prosecution to respond within 21 days thereafter