R v Riaz ; R v Burke

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date18 November 1991
Date18 November 1991
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Court of Appeal

Before Lord Lane, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Rose and Mr Justice Owen

Regina
and
Riaz Regina v Burke

Criminal procedure - retired jury - taped evidence

No reason why jury cannot hear tape of evidence

A tape recording of a police interview with a defendant was primary evidence, which when produced at trial became an exhibit and if the jury wished to hear it rather than to rely on the written transcript there was no reason why they should not be allowed to do so. Their Lordships were of the opinion that the jury should be brought back for the tape to be heard in open court.

The Court of Appeal so stated when considering two cases which raised the question whether a jury, after retirement, should be allowed to hear tape recordings of police interviews with defendants, which tapes had not been played in court, although transcripts had been agreed and read. Their Lordships said that they agreed with and adopted what had been said in R v EmmersonTLR (The Times December 5, 1990) except on the question of whether there was any advantage in re-assembing the court to enable the jury to hear the tape in open court.

The court dismissed the appeal of Raqaiya Riaz against her conviction by a majority of ten to two, on January 4, 199l at Newport Crown Court (Judge Gibbon, QC and a jury) of obtaining property by deception, on which she was ordered to pay £28.99 compensation and £500 prosecution costs.

Their Lordships, applying the proviso to section 2(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, also dismissed the appeal of Martin Burke against his conviction on July 5, 1991 at Snaresbrook Crown Court (Mr Recorder J G Paulusz and a jury) of robbery, on which he was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

Miss M Parry Evans, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for Riaz; Mr Stephen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • R v Hagan
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 12 December 1996
    ......Only in the most strictly technical sense, could the tape recording be described as fresh evidence at all. The same conclusion was reached in Riaz and Burke (1992) 94 Cr App R 339, Lord Lane CJ presiding. Mr Perry referred however to Rawlings (1995) 2 Cr App R 222 which concerned a video ......
  • R v Rawlings ; R v Broadbent
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 14 October 1994
    ...that the tape needed editing, we would hold that the judge erred in not letting the jury have the original tape". 16 In Riaz and Burke, 94 Cr App R 339, this court held that, subject to any necessary editing, a jury in retirement may, on request, be allowed to hear a tape recording of a po......
  • R v Simone Estha Minnott
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 19 May 2016
    ...... . 20 He referred this Court to two cases to which he had not referred the judge. The first is the case of Riaz & Burke [1992] 94 Cr App R 339. The case concerned an interview and whether the recording should have been played to the jury. The court said this at ......
1 books & journal articles
  • Court of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 58-3, August 1994
    • 1 August 1994
    ...to the tapewas enormous. Counsel therefore objected to any replaying and, inparticular, to replaying in the jury room.In R v Emmerson (1992) 94 Cr App R 339, the judge refused counsel'srequest that the jury, on retiring, be provided with the tape of evidencewhich they had already heard in o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT