header-logo header-logo

24 July 2008
Issue: 7331 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Criminal Litigation

R v Cadman [2008] EWCA Crim 1418, [2008] All ER (D) 43 (Jul)

The defendant was charged with fraud involving cheques. At the trial, the jury were shown a number of cheques but there was no expert handwriting evidence that compared the defendant’s handwriting to the handwritten details on the cheques. The defendant denied any part in the fraud. After the jury had retired, they requested a sample of cheques which the defendant had allegedly written, the foreman of the jury indicating that they wanted to compare the handwriting on the cheques with samples of the defendant’s handwriting in other documents.

HELD For the jury to use the extraneous material provided after their retirement (i.e. the sample of further cheques) in order to compare handwriting so as to decide whether the appellant had written out the cheques in question necessarily meant using that extraneous material as evidence in an exercise that would enable the jury to reach their own conclusion in relation to the appellant’s evidence to the contrary. It was wholly impermissible for the jury to make use of the extraneous material for such an evidential exercise.

Issue: 7331 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
For decades, juries have been told to convict only if they are ‘sure’ of guilt. But what does that mean in practice? Writing in NLJ this week, Michael Zander KC, NLJ columnist and emeritus professor at LSE, argues the answer is alarmingly unclear
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
Could an online LLM in Commercial and Technology Law expand your career options?
The controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill has passed its second reading by 304 votes to 203, despite concerted opposition from the legal profession
back-to-top-scroll