R v Myers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 July 1997 |
| Date | 24 July 1997 |
| Court | House of Lords |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
47 cases
-
R v Hurley
...would have been admissible at trial, both against McGhee and in favour of the Applicant under the law as it was later declared to be in R v Myers [1998] AC 124. In any event it would now be admissible as hearsay under one of the hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Is there ......
-
R v Muktar Ibrahim and Others
...Whether or not the evidence of the confession is relied on by the Crown, it may be admissible at the behest of the co-accused ( R v Myers [1998] AC 124). Section 76 A (2) of PACE introduced a number of pre-conditions to the introduction by one co-accused of the evidence of another co-accuse......
-
Donna Murphy V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...not to lead the content of the later statements, as not being Cadder compliant, did not prevent the appellant from so doing (R v Myers [1998] AC 124, [1996] Cr App Rep 335). The later statements had been "mixed" and therefore admissible. The co‑accused had been able to rely on the statement......
-
Baker v R
...another representation to which it is reasonably necessary to refer in order to understand the representation.’ 27 [1993] 2 Qd R 572. 28 [1998] AC 124. 29Section 76A(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (UK) provides that ‘[i]n any proceedings a confession made by an accused pers......
Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
-
Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings of Third Party and Real Evidence Obtained by Methods Prohibited by UNCAT
...Jury’ (2005) 64 Camb LJ 678.292 This might be because the defendant is an agent or former leader of that state.293 R v Myers [1998] AC 124, Lobban v R [1995] 1 WLR 877. But see PACE, s. 76A(2).294 E. Greenspan, ‘Lowering the Threshold for Admissibility of Defence Evidence in a CriminalCase’......
-
Table of Cases
.... . . . . . . . . . 84R v Murray [1997] 2 Cr App R 136. . . . . . 109, 127R v Mushtaq [2005] UKHL 25. . . . . . . . . . 340–342R v Myers [1998] AC 124. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318R v Norman [2006] EWCA Crim 1662. . . . . . . . 64R v O’Connell (1848) 7 St Tr 637. . . . . . . . . .......
-
Subject Index
...Rollock[2004] UKHL 2, [2004] 2 WLR 201........................................... 186–190R v Momo [2001] EWCA Crim 397 .. 175R v My ers [1998] AC 124. .. 165, 170, 175,177, 178R v Neale (1977) 65 Cr App R 304 ... 169R v Noonan [2003] EWCA Crim 3869.................................................
-
Criminal Justice Act 2003: Bad Character Provisions
...a co-accused might be able to deploy evidencewhich might have been excluded in respect of the prosecution (see, forexample, R v Myers [1998] AC 124). This position recognises the distinctinterests of the co-accused and the prosecution; the stakes for the formerare of course considerably hig......
Request a trial to view additional results