R v Campbell
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1985 |
| Date | 01 January 1985 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
- Depositions not endorsed - Whether endorsement mandatory - Insufficiency of evidence - Whether magistrate acted within jurisdiction - Whether committal and subsequent conviction null - Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland), 1969 (c. 15), s. 2(1) - Criminal Justice (Committal for Trial) Act (Northern Ireland), 1968 (c. 32), ss. 3, 7 -Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order, 1981 (S.I. No. 1675, N.I. 26), art. 33. Conviction quashed on appeal - Retrial -Whether judge in retrial should have access to judgment quashing conviction.
Each of the three appellants were committed for trial by the use of written statements at a preliminary enquiry. Many of the statements put in evidence did not comply with section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Committal for Trial) Act (Northern Ireland), 1968, and its replacement, article 33 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order, 1981, because they were not endorsed by the person who recorded the statement or to whom the statement was delivered for the purposes of the proceedings. In none of the cases would the evidence have sufficed to commit the accused for trial without resort to the statements which were not endorsed. At each trial no order, under section 2(3) of the Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland), 1969, to enter "No Bill"was made. Each defendant was arraigned, one pleaded guilty and two not guilty. The latter were tried and found guilty. All three were sentenced and then appealed. On appeal all three argued that the statements were defective, that the committals for trial, the Bills of Indictment and the trials were all nullities. For the Crown it was argued that the provisions requiring endorsement were not mandatory, but merely directory. One appellant had been convicted at an earlier trial, but the convictions had been quashed and a new trial ordered. He also appealed on the ground that the judge at the second trial should not have had before him a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal ordering the new trial. Held that, 1, the endorsement of a witness's declaration required by the 1968 Act and the 1981 Order was mandatory as the legislation clearly and unambiguously laid down conditions for the admission of statements; statutes enlarging an inferior court's jurisdiction, as these did, must be construed strictly; the power to admit statements was to the accused's prejudice and should be strictly construed and the requirement in question was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Colin Frederick Campbell
-
R v Bellamy
...is made abundantly clear by consideration of two decisions of this court: R. v. Hayes [1977] 2 All E. R. 288 and 64 Cr. App. R. 194, and R. v. Campbell (1983) Crim. L. R. 174. I cite just a short paragraph from each case. 18 The position in Hayes was that two children, respectively aged 12 ......
-
Neill v North Antrim Magistrates' Court and Another
...indeed to express this doubt if I had thought it to be in any way inconsistent with the decision of Lord Lowry L.C.J. in R. v. Campbell [1985] N.I. 354. This is not however the case. At the committals of the appellants in Campbell many of the statements put in evidence had not been indorsed......
-
Queen v Jones (Gary)
...subsequently I believe that this decision would be no different today. [9] The judgment of Lowry LCJ in The Queen –v- Campbell and Others [1985] NI 354 contains a passage of some significance, in the present context. One of the questions which arose in that appeal was whether, against the b......