R v Bevan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 1993 |
| Date | 30 March 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Criminal procedure - where accused decides not to give evidence
When a decision was taken by a defendant not to go into the witness box it should be the invariable practice of counsel to have that decision recorded and to cause the defendant to sign the record giving a clear indication of (i) the fact of his having, of his own accord, decided not to give evidence and (ii) that he had done that bearing in mind the advice, regardless of what it was, given to him by learned counsel.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Watkins, Mr Justice Macpherson of Cluny and Mr Justice Turner) so stated on March 11 in dismissing an appeal by Terence Steven Bevan against his conviction in October 1991 at Birmingham Crown Court (Mr Justice Judge and a jury) of unlawful wounding.
LORD JUSTICE WATKINS, giving the judgment of the court, said that if it was not at present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ebanks (KF) v R
...State, [2001] 4 LRC 647, considered. (2) Broadhurst v. R., [1964] A.C. 441; [1964] 1 All E.R. 111, referred to. (3) R. v. BevanUNK(1993), 98 Cr. App. R. 354; 157 J.P. 1121, dicta of Watkins, L.J. applied. (4) R. v. Burge, [1996] 1 Cr. App. R. 163; (1995), 139 Sol. Jo. (L.B.) 99, applied. (5......
-
The People (at the suit of the DPP) v Brian Shaughnessey
...It should be noted that this was a case in which counsel had failed to heed the practice recommended by the court in Bevan (1994) 98 Cr. App. R. 354 (Appendix C-54). This approach was, however, firmly rejected in Day [2003] EWCA Crim 1060; [2003] 6 Archbold News 1, CA, where it was said th......
-
Ebanks v The Queen
...importance that it has long been recognised that it should be recorded in writing. Watkins LJ explained the position in this way in R v Bevan (1993) 98 Cr App R 354, 358: "One criticism has, however, to be levelled at learned counsel. It is to be hoped that all counsel will heed what we now......
- Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland v Etheridge Shire Council