R v Emmerson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 1990 |
| Date | 16 November 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Lloyd, Mr Justice Schiemann and Mr Justice Jowitt
Criminal procedure - retired jury - taped evidence
The jury were entitled to take with them on retirement tape recordings of interviews which had been given in evidence. Where necessary those should be edited to remove any part of the interview which had not been given in evidence.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division so held in applying the proviso in section 2(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and rejecting the appeal of Geoffrey Emmerson against his conviction on December 15, 1988 in Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court (Judge Crawford, QC and a jury) on two counts of theft for which he was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years on each count concurrently.
Mr James Adams, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Mr Ian Graham for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE LLOYD said the appellant was an installation and service engineer dealing with "one-armed bandits". He had been interviewed three times by police about money missing from machines he had serviced and had made admissions. At his trial he denied theft.
At the conclusion of the judge's summing up, counsel for the appellant had asked that the jury be provided with the tape of the second interview, during which a police officer had spoken in a raised voice and had sworn at the appellant.
The judge had referred to the rule that evidence could not be given after the summing up. Counsel had maintained correctly that the tape was the original evidence. The judge had not agreed, describing counsel's request as improper and objectionable.
Although their Lordships could well understand that counsel's request might have posed practical difficulties, they did not agree that the jury were not entitled to take the tape to the jury room.
The tape was the evidence. When it was produced it became the exhibit. There was no reason why the jury should not take it with them in the same way as any other exhibit.
It could not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Riaz ; R v Burke
-
R v Rawlings ; R v Broadbent
...were referred to cases concerning requests by a jury in retirement to have tape recordings of interviews with a defendant played to them. In Emmerson, 92 Cr App R 284, the defendant had been interviewed by the police three times. In his second interview, which was tape recorded, a police o......
-
R v Robinson
...retires, provided that the recording is not intended to act as a substitute for a witness giving evidence-in-chief (R. v. Emmerson (1991), 92 Cr. App. R. 284, followed). It is useful for a jury to retain a transcript in order to assist it in its recollection of the evidence, particularly wh......