header-logo header-logo

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

16 August 2007
Issue: 7286 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R v Cole; R v Keets [2007] EWCA Crim 1924, [2007] All ER (D) 472 (Jul)

Article 6 ( the right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not impose an absolute embargo on the admission of hearsay evidence adduced by the prosecution.

The governing criterion for adducing such evidence is whether or not the admission of the evidence is compatible with a fair trial. This is so even if the hearsay evidence is the decisive or sole evidence against the accused.

Issue: 7286 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll