Crown Courts
| Published date | 01 April 1977 |
| Date | 01 April 1977 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201837704100203 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Crown Courts
Comments
on
Cases
WITNESS ACCUSED ELSEWHERE
R. v.
Allen
and
Others
Early in
1977
Judge
Booth
gave a ruling at
the
Crown
Court
in
Manchester
about
awitness
brought
from Liverpool
on
awitness
summons
with
a case file
of
proceedings
later
in
date
than
the
matter
before
the
learned
judge;
the
officer
represented
his
superiors
to
whom
the
summons
had
been
addressed.
The
case
actually
being
heard
against Allen
and
others,
including
two
women,
involved
counts
of
conspiracy and
of
blackmail, in general relating to
drug
transactions
among
a West
Indian
fraternity:
one
of
whom,
Victor
Scott,
was
thought
to
have
made
money
by
cheating
some
of
the
others
and
to have a large
sum
put
by. To relieve him
of
this as a ransom,
others
of
the
fraternity
were alleged to have
kidnapped
Scott
and
his wife
and
to have held
them
by
various means including a
sort
of
house
arrest for
the
wife: (Miss Woods for a
defendant
housewife queried
how
this was possible at a flat in
London
S.W.!.
with
neighbours
visiting).
Victor
Scott
was
not
only
attacked
in cross-examination,
(like his wife),
but
the
summons
was issued, as
stated
above,
with
the
intention
of
getting
the
information
from Liverpool police placed
before
the
jury,
that
Scott
was a
defendant
in a case, also
about
drugs,
but
on
facts
at
a
later
date
in
1976
than
the
matters
on
trial
before
Judge
Booth.
Mr. Mantell
of
Counsel, defending,
took
primary
responsibility for
the
potential
Liverpool witness,
and
argued for
the
admission
of
his
testimony,
and
of
the
file, in
the
absence
of
the
Jury.
The
Judge
adjourned
the
case for
the
Liverpool (Merseyside) police to be represented by Counsel;
Mr.
Hamilton
appeared. He argued
the
file evidence
went
only
to
the
credit
of
Scott
as a witness.
From
apractical view-point
reporting
restrictions might
not
be lifted on
the
Liverpool case at
committal
stage: also
matters
of
security might arise: it was a
Not
Guilty
plea
by
Scott
at Liverpool.
Case law began
at
R. v. Watson (32 State Trials
100),
where
Bailey
J.
laid
down
that
the
trial record is
the
only
proof
of
guilt
receivable,
and
that
civil
and
criminal
matters
were alike in this,
without
which
prohibition
endless
matters
would
be
put
to
the
test. In Marks v.
Bey/us
(189025
QBD
494)
the
judge
held
that
the
Director
of
Public Prosecutions was right in refusing
to
give an
84
To continue reading
Request your trial