Fresh Evidence in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Donald Pendleton
    • House of Lords
    • 13 Dic 2001

    The Court of Appeal can make its assessment of the fresh evidence it has heard, but save in a clear case it is at a disadvantage in seeking to relate that evidence to the rest of the evidence which the jury heard. For these reasons it will usually be wise for the Court of Appeal, in a case of any difficulty, to test their own provisional view by asking whether the evidence, if given at the trial, might reasonably have affected the decision of the trial jury to convict.

  • Ladd v Marshall
    • Court of Appeal
    • 29 Nov 1954

    In order to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial, three conditions mast be fulfilled: first, it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial: second, the evidence most be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it need not be decisive: thirdly, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, though it need not be incontrovertible.

  • R v Erskine; R v Williams
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 14 Jul 2009

    The fact that the issue to which the fresh evidence relates was not raised at trial does not automatically preclude its reception. However it is well understood that, save exceptionally, if the defendant is allowed to advance on appeal a defence and/or evidence which could and should have been but were not put before the jury, our trial process would be subverted.

  • Stafford v DPP; Luvaglio v DPP
    • House of Lords
    • 18 Oct 1973

    I do not suggest that in determining whether a verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory, it is a wrong approach for the court to pose the question— If the court thinks that it would or might, the court will no doubt conclude that the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory.

    While as I have said the Court of Appeal and this House may find it a convenient approach to consider what a jury might have done if they had heard the fresh evidence, the ultimate responsibility rests with them and them alone for deciding the question.

  • R v Callaghan and Others
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 27 Mar 1991

    If the court thinks that it would or might, the court will no doubt conclude that the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory. That it is a convenient approach and a reasonable one to make, I do not deny. When a court has said that, it means and can only mean that they think that the fresh evidence might have led to a different result to the case, and that in consequence the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory.

  • E v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 02 Feb 2004

    First, there must have been a mistake as to an existing fact, including a mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter. Secondly, the fact or evidence must have been "established", in the sense that it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable. Fourthly, the mistake must have played a material (not necessarily decisive) part in the Tribunal's reasoning.

See all results
  • Legal Aid Act 1974
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 1974
    ...... . (new trials in cases of fresh evidence), the Court of Appeal or the. House of Lords, as the case may be, ......
  • Criminal Justice Act 1967
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 1967
    ...... the proceedings of criminal courts, including the law relating to evidence, and to the qualification of jurors, in such proceedings and to appeals in ... (new trials in cases of fresh evidence), the former court or. the House of Lords, as the case may be, or ......
  • Immigration Act 2016
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 2016
    ...... (within the meaning of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). . (5) In this section “worker” has the same meaning as ... . (a) accepted,. . . (b) rejected without being treated as a fresh protection claim, or. . . (c) treated as a fresh protection claim. . . ......
  • Social Security Administration Act 1992
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 1992
    ...... . . (h) for requiring any information or evidence needed for. the determination of such a claim or of any question. arising ...tribunal should have given, if he can do so without. making fresh or further findings of fact; or. . . (ii) if he considers it expedient, ......
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT