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.
