header-logo header-logo

Criminal Evidence

03 January 2008 / Peter Hungerford-welch
Issue: 7302 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Lynch [2007] All ER (D) 346 (Nov)

This case concerned the admissibility of a statement made by a witness during an identification procedure held pursuant to PACE Code D. 

 

HELD - Section 67 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) does not render admissible something which is hearsay evidence, albeit evidence obtained during a process properly conducted under the Codes of Practice. The Codes of Practice do not alter the rules on admissibility of evidence. Moreover, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 114(1)(a) is not authority for the proposition that anything said by a witness in an identification parade is admissible merely because it operated in accordance with Code D.  However, some statements might be so bound up so as to form part of the exception to the hearsay rule; a statement accompanying a relevant act might therefore be admissible. Moreover, the judge was also entitled to conclude that the statement was admissible in the interests of justice pursuant to s 114(1)(d).

Issue: 7302 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll