R v Dragic
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1996 |
| Date | 27 February 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Taylor of Gosforth, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Curtis and Mr Justice Gage
Criminal evidence - admissibility - statement by witness who later became ill
No statutory provision or legal precedent justified a submission that a trial judge was wrong to have admitted in evidence several statements made by a witness to a burglary who later became so ill and was operated upon so that he was and would remain unfit for an indeterminate time to give evidence at the trial of a man he had identified as being involved in the burglary.
The Court of Appeal so held in dismissing an appeal by Filip Dragic, aged 30, against conviction at Luton Crown Court (Judge Moss and a jury) on a single count of burglary, for which he was sentenced to three years imprisonment. He had been tried jointly with Alan Barry Walker, who pleaded guilty and was put on probation for two years with a condition that he have psychiatric treatment.
Section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides:
"(1) … a statement made by a person in a document shall be admissible in criminal proceedings as evidence of any fact of which direct oral evidence by him would be admissible if…
"(2) … (a) … the person who made the statement is … by reason of his bodily … condition unfit to attend as a witness…"
Section 26 provides: "Where a statement which is admissible in criminal proceedings by virtue of section 23 … appears to the court to have been prepared … for the purposes (a) of pending or contemplated criminal proceedings … the statement shall not be given in evidence in any criminal proceedings without the leave of the court, and the court shall not give leave unless it is of the opinion that the statement ought to be admitted in the interests of justice; and in considering whether its admission would be in the interests of justice, it shall be the duty of the court to have regard (i) to the contents of the statement; (ii) to any risk, having regard in particular to whether it is likely to be possible to controvert the statement if the person making it does not attend to give oral evidence in the proceedings, that its admission or exclusion will result in unfairness to the accused or … (iii) to any other circumstances that appear to the court to be relevant.
Mr John M H Lee, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Miss Isabel Delamere for the Crown.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Steven Grant
...of the particular case bearing in mind the considerations which section 26 require the judge to have in mind' per Lord Taylor CJ in R v Dragic [1996] 2 Crim App R 232 at 237. In R v Gokal [1997] 2 Crim. App. R 286 this court, considering in advance of the Human Rights Act the assistance fr......
-
R v M (KJ)
...of Appeal on the application of Sections 23 and 26 to which I have been referred and they are, to give them in order Philip Dragic (1996) 2 Cr App R 232, Abas Kassimali Gokal (1997) 2 Cr App R 266 and finally and most recently Christopher Antonio Thomas & Others decided in 1998, and as ye......
-
Mark Antonio Kelly Junior Andrews v R
...cannot have been intended by the European Court in Strasbourg.” 29 Waller LJ then cited with approval the observations of Lord Taylor CJ in R v Dragic [1996] 2 Cr App Rep 232 at 237 repeated by Potter LJ (as he then was) in R. v. M (KJ) [2003] EWCA Crim 357 [2003] Cr. App. Rep 21 at paragra......
-
R v Arnold
...to his view of the interests of justice, the learned Judge dealt with each of these heads with care. Referring to Regina v. Dragic [1996] 2 Cr App Rep 232, he considered that the fact that Mr Stevens identified the appellant by name was no automatic bar. Further, he had no doubt that, havi......
-
Subject Index
...Prosecutions, ex p.Kebilene [2000]2 AC 346. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199R v Doheny and Adams [1997] 1Cr AppR 369 118R vDragic [1996] 2Cr App R232, CA . . . . . . . . . 97R vDunn (1990) 91Cr App R150 . . . . . . . . . . . 149R vEvans [2010] NZCA340. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334R v ......
-
Absent Witnesses and the UK Supreme Court: Judicial Deference as Judicial Dialogue?
...6 violation;inter alia no opportunity to examine multiple witnesses).55 See also pre-Human Rights Act case law, including RvDragic [1996] 2 Cr App R 232 at 239.56 RvSellick [2005] EWCA Crim 651, [2005] 1 WLR 3257 at [65]–[66].57 Ibid. at Instead the Court of Appeal has focused on the questi......
-
Confrontation: The Defiance of the English Courts
...v Gokal [1997] 2 Cr App R 266, CA; R v Thomas [1998] Crim LR 887, CA; R v M (KJ) [2003] 2 Cr App R 322, CA. 16 See, e.g., R v Dragic [1996] 2 Cr App R 232, CA.17 These provisions are described, and their compatibility with the Convention discussed at great length, in W. E. O’Brian, ‘The Rig......