A Clear Cut Case
| Date | 01 January 1984 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1984.tb01641.x |
| Author | Jennifer A. James |
| Published date | 01 January 1984 |
Jan. 19841
NOTES
OF
CASES
103
reasonable person test. The same commentator might have regretted
that this form of manslaughter still survived as a monument to a past
harshness in the criminal law.’3 The world has turned upside-down.
The standard for gross negligence may now be the standard for all
offences which require recklessness.
Seymour
will have repercussions
throughout the criminal law. Judges in Crown Courts up and down
the country will be looking for the “ordinary and simple” meaning
of
recklessness. And it is not easy to say where they will find it.
CELIA WELLS*
A CLEAR CUT CASE
THE
case of
R.
v.
Abadom,’
concerned the admissibility of expert
opinion evidence when the opinion of the expert witness was based
upon statistical evidence compiled by other experts who did not
testify and which was thus, counsel for the appellant argued, depen-
dent upon hearsay evidence and itself inadmissible.’ The facts of the
case were simple. Four masked men broke into an office and stole
f5,OOO.
During the course of the robbery the leading villain broke
a window. Slivers
of
glass were found in Abadom’s shoes in positions
consistent with him having broken a window and trodden on the
broken glass. Evidence that the glass in Abadom’s shoe was glass
from the window broken during the robbery would be compelling
identification of Abadom as the leading villain.
Two expert witnesses (principal scientific officers at the Home
Office forensic laboratories) testified at Abadom’s trial. During their
evidence they stated that they had tested the refractive index of the
slivers of glass found in Abadom’s shoes; and that statistical evidence
compiled by the Home Office Central Research Establishment
indicated that only 4 per cent.
of
glass analysed in forensic labora-
tories possessed this refractive index. One expert concluded that
given these statistics there was in his opinion, “very strong evidence
that the glass from the shoes was in fact the same as the glass from
the window.” This expert evidence was the basis of the case against
the accused. Evidence was given by a witness for the defence that 4
per cent. of glass production in any one year would amount to
between
20,000
and‘40,000 tons and that the glass in Abadom’s shoe
was, therefore, not uncommon. Abadom was convicted and appealed
on the basis that the Home Office statistical records were inadmis-
See C.
Wells,
“Perfectly Simple English Manslaughter” (1976) 39 M.L.R. 474;
E.
Griew, “Consistency, Communication and Codification: Reflections on Two Mens Rea
Words” in Glazebrook (ed.),
Reshaping
fhe
Criminul Law
(1977). The Criminal Law
Revision Committee has recommended the abolition
of
gross
negligence manslaughter:
14th Report,
Offences Against The Person,
Cmnd.
7844
(1980), paras. 116-124.
Lecturer in Law, University
of
Newcastle upon Tyne.
*
For
a discussion
of
expert opinion evidence generally see
Cross
on Evidence
(5th ed.),
[1983]
1
All
E.R.
364.
pp.445448.
To continue reading
Request your trial