R v Robb
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 1991 |
| Date | 01 February 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Bingham, Mr Justice Hutchison and Mr Justice Buckley
Criminal evidence - admissibility - voice identification technique
Evidence of voice identification given by an expert witness, who was well qualified by academic training and practical experience to express an opinion, was admissible even where the expert relied solely on a technique which was accepted by the majority of professional opinion to be unreliable unless supplemented and verified by acoustic analysis.
The Court of Appeal so stated when dismissing the appeal of Robert McCheyne Robb against his conviction on November 30, 1989 in Southwark Crown Court (Judge Anwyl-Davies, QC and a jury) of conspiracy to commit false imprisonment, on which he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Mr Michael Hill, QC and Mr John Kelsey-Fry, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Miss Joanna Korner and Mr Andrew Brierley for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE BINGHAM, giving the judgment of the court, said that in March 1989 a wealthy Middle Eastern businessman was kidnapped in London and taken to Kent.
Demands for ransom were made to his wife by telephone and instructions were given, also by telephone, to a cab company for the collection of ransom. Those demands, save for the first, and instructions were tape-recorded at the receiver's end.
The Crown alleged that the appellant was closely involved in the planning and execution of the kidnap, and that it was he who spoke to the wife to communicate the ransom demands and to the cab company to give instructions.
Thus the Crown contended that the tape recordings of those telephone calls were of the appellant's voice, and that they could be compared with a video tape found in the appellant's flat which undoubtedly recorded the appellant's voice.
The appellant did not give evidence at trial. The Crown relied first and foremost on the expert evidence of a witness who, having listened to the disputed audio and video tapes, gave his opinion that the voice on the tapes was the same.
It was common ground that voice identification was an expert field, that was a field in which evidence of opinion might be given by an appropriately qualified witness, that is, a skilled witness who had carried out appropriate tests. The appellant's essential submission was that the expert called by the Crown failed to meet that requirement.
The expert witness relied on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Perez
...R. 31; [2004] EWCA Crim 1344, dicta of Rose, L.J. followed. (13) R. v. Parenzee, [2007] SASC 143, considered. (14) R. v. RobbUNK(1991), 93 Cr. App. R. 161; [1991] Crim. L.R. 539, dicta of Bingham, L.J. followed. (15) R. v. Rose(1993), 69 A Crim R 1; [1993] SASC 4249, followed. (16) R. v. Tr......
-
R v Ahmed (Rangzieb)
...in passing that there is some debate about the scope of the second part of the first limb which might be restrictive: see R v Robb (1991) 93 Cr App Rep 161 and the extract from Cross and Tapper on Evidence (now at page 545 of the 12 th edition) approved in Dallagher: "the better, and now m......
-
Alex Julian Pabon v R
...would be outside the expert's area or areas of expertise….” See too, R v Harris [2005] EWCA Crim 1980; [2006] 1 Cr App R 5, esp. at [271]; R v B (T) [2006] EWCA Crim 417; [2006] 2 Cr App R 3. Further detail as to recording, reporting and disclosing to the prosecution the material in the e......
-
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar
...SC 34 at 39–40 (emphasis added). These passages have been much cited: for example Lysaght v Police [1965] NZLR 405 at 409; R v Robb (1991) 93 Cr App R 161 at 166; O'Kelly Holdings Pty Ltd v Dalrymple Holdings Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 145 at 155; R v Gilfoyle [2001] 2 Cr App R 57 at 67 [24]; R ......
-
Subject Index
.... . 124, 129R vNg (2006) 212CCC (3d) 277 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299R vNikolovski (1996) 111CCC (3d) 403 . . . . . .292R vO’Doherty (1991) 93Cr App R161 . . . . . . . 348R vOickle 2000 SCC38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156R v Osbourne [2007] EWCA Crim 481. . . . . . 121,122, 12......
-
Subject Index
...2002) ........... 143R v Reid and others [2002] Crim LR 211................................................. 113, 116R v Robb (1991) 93 Cr App R 161, CA....... 173, 175, 177, 179, 180, 181, 184R v Robinson [2003] Crim LR 283................................................ 106, 108R v Sang [......
-
Subject Index
...200; [1999]Crim LR 62 .....................................................2 2R v Riley [2003] EWCA Crim 1694 .... 173, 174R v Robb (1991) 93 Cr App R 161...............2 62R v Robinson (1994) 98 Cr App R 370 ... 265,266R v Romeo [2004] 1 Cr App R 417.............. 13 8R v Rothwell (1994) 9......
-
Exemplum Habemus: Reflections on the Judicial Studies Board's Specimen Directions
...Denial and PurposiveConfession’ [2003] Crim LR 850.128 [2005] UKHL 22.129 [2003] 1 Cr App R 77. The case, in fact, is O’Doherty.130 (1991) 93 Cr App R 161.131 See, e.g., Specimen Direction No. 30 sub nom. ‘Identification by DNA’, whichbegan ‘In R v. Doneby and Adams [1997] 1 Cr App R at p.......