R v Radak ; R v Adjei ; R v Butler-Rees ; R v Meghjee
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 1998 |
| Date | 10 July 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Before Lord Justice May, Mr Justice Rougier and Judge Fabyan Evans
Criminal evidence - foreign witness for prosecution - admission of written statement would be unfair
In considering whether, as a matter of discretion under section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it would be in the interests of justice to grant leave to admit the written statement of a prosecution witness living in the United States of America who refused to attend court to give evidence, allegedly through fear, a defendant's right to equality with the prosecution as to the summoning and examining of witnesses had to be safeguarded in accordance with article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.
Where the evidence could have been obtained by the prosecution on commission in the United States, and thereby subjected to cross-examination, it was relevant to the court's considerations under section 26 that the prosecution had failed so to do.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in giving reasons for allowing on July 6 an appeal by Jason Dragon Radak, Anthony Asafu Adjei, John Llewelyn Butler-Rees, and Muntazir Meghjee against an interlocutory decision made in the course of a preparatory hearing by Judge Pitman at Snaresbrook Crown Court, on June 22, 1998, when he ruled pursuant to sections 23, 25 and 26 of the 1988 Act that two written statements by Mr Leslie Shifrin might be adduced in evidence on behalf of the prosecution without Mr Shifrin attending to give evidence.
Mr Richard Keogh for Radak; Mr Stuart Lawson Rogers, QC and Mr Geoffrey Porter for Adjei; Mr Christopher Ball, QC for Butler-Rees, Mr Ami Feder and Mr Spenser Hilliard for Meghjee; Mr John McGuinness and Mr Philip Romans for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE MAY, giving the judgment of the court, said that the prosecution's case was that Mr Shifrin was an account holder of a New York bank holding, at the end of June 1996, a credit balance just short of US$1 million.
That balance was abruptly wiped out by three major withdrawals over the next few days. One withdrawal was a transfer to an account in Vienna, the others were transfers to two other accounts in the UK.
It was in respect of that transferred money, or parts thereof, that it was alleged that the defendants committed the various money laundering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v C and K
...is "outside the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance" (Section 68(2)(ii)). 21 R v Radak & Ors [1999] 1 Cr.App.R 187 was an interlocutory appeal against the decision of a judge that two written statements by a witness, who was in the United States, mi......
-
R v Rondell Karl Pereira
...the statement. 49 We have purposely dealt with the exercise of the judge's discretion before considering the case of Radak and Others (1999) 1 Cr.App.R. 187. The reason why we have taken that course in this judgment is that in Radak this Court came to the view that the judge had not exercis......
-
R v Rondell Karl Pereira
...the statement. 63 We have purposely dealt with the exercise of the judge's discretion before considering the case of Radak and Others (1999) 1 Cr.App.R. 187. The reason why we have taken that course in this judgment is that in Radak this Court came to the view that the judge had not exercis......
-
Are Tax Evasion Offences Predicate Offences for Money‐Laundering Offences?
...Sub nom: In the Matter of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, Re (1995;. (72) In R v Radak, Adjei, Butler-Rees & Meghjee [1999] 1 Cr App Rep 187, [1999] Criminal Law Review 223 (the defendant's right to equality of arms enshrined in the European Conven-tion on Human Rights 1950 Art. 6(3......
-
Subject Index
...275R vQiu [2008] 1NZLR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249–251R vR [1994] 1WLR 758 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281R vRadak [1999] 1Cr App R187 . . . . . . . . . . . .281R vRafiq [2005] EWCACrim 1453 . . . . . . . . . . 280R vRamage [1985] 1NZLR 392 . . . . . . . . . 162, 163R vR......
-
Cases
...1999418R vPiggott;R v Litwin (1999)(unreported,18/3/9998/2622Z5;9812628/Z5) 314R v Pitt [1998] 1 Cr App R (5) 52214R v Radak and ors [1999] 1 Cr App R187 343R vRamzan(1998) 2 Cr App R 328 126R vRichards(1999) 163 JP 246434R vRichardson[1998] 2 Cr App R20023R vRichardsonand Irwin [1999] 1 Cr......
-
Cases
...1999418R vPiggott;R v Litwin (1999)(unreported,18/3/9998/2622Z5;9812628/Z5) 314R v Pitt [1998] 1 Cr App R (5) 52214R v Radak and ors [1999] 1 Cr App R187 343R vRamzan(1998) 2 Cr App R 328 126R vRichards(1999) 163 JP 246434R vRichardson[1998] 2 Cr App R20023R vRichardsonand Irwin [1999] 1 Cr......