Lynch, R v

Lynch, R v

The judge was entitled to admit the identification parade statement under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as being in the interests of justice, given the reliability of the context, the opportunity for cross-examination, and the proximity in time to the incident. The evidence was not rendered admissible merely by compliance with PACE Codes, nor did it fall within the res gestae exception as in McCay, but its admission was justified on the interests of justice limb.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: William Stewart Lynch
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Admissibility of Evidence, Identification Parade, Criminal Justice Act 2003, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Criminal Law Evidence Hearsay Admissibility of Evidence Identification Parade Criminal Justice Act 2003 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

William Stewart Lynch

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admission of hearsay evidence from an identification parade was lawful under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting a witness's out-of-court statement as evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to admit the identification parade statement under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as being in the interests of justice, given the reliability of the context, the opportunity for cross-examination, and the proximity in time to the incident. The evidence was not rendered admissible merely by compliance with PACE Codes, nor did it fall within the res gestae exception as in McCay, but its admission was justified on the interests of justice limb.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; conviction upheld