header-logo header-logo

Criminal Litigation

18 October 2007
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R v Chal [2007] All ER (D) 70 (Oct)

The defendant was found unfit to stand trial. In proceedings under s 4A of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (CP(I)A 1964), the judge allowed a statement of a prosecution witness who could not be traced to be read pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003), s 116.

The defendant submitted that the judge had erred in admitting hearsay evidence because the hearing under CP(I)A 1964, s 4A did not amount to “criminal proceedings” as defined in CJA 2003, s 134.

HELD The phrase “criminal proceedings” could properly be interpreted to include all proceedings in the criminal procedure framework, including ancillary proceedings that did not of themselves result in a criminal conviction or punishment.

A jury should only make a finding that the defendant committed the actus reus of the offence if it was satisfied, to the criminal standard of proof, that he did the act alleged. The purpose of CP(I)A 1964, s 4A is that a person should not be detained unless they would have been found guilty at a criminal trial. Therefore, it is imperative that the same rules of evidence should be applied to proceedings under s 4A as would have been applied if it were a criminal trial in the strict sense.

The judge therefore had the power to admit the hearsay statement either on the basis that CJA 2003 applied as a matter of statutory interpretation, or on the basis that the court should adopt the same rules of evidence as in a criminal trial.

Issue: 7293 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll