R v Rothwell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 April 1993 |
| Date | 07 April 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
The Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Roch, Mr Justice McCullough and Mr Justice Alliott
Criminal evidence - admissibility- hearsay
An assertion by a prosecution witness that someone receiving a package was a heroin addict was inadmissible in evidence unless the witness had first-hand knowledge of the fact or it was based on that person's convictions for possession of the specified drug.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in dismissing an appeal by Stanley Rothwell against his conviction in July 1991 at Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court (Judge Crawford, QC and a jury) of supplying and possessing heroin.
Mr Michael Hodson, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Mr Paul Batty for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE ROCH, giving the judgment of the court, said that the prosecution's case was based on police surveillance of the appellant when he was observed passing small packages to various people, some of whom were known to the police as heroin users. One of the officers gave evidence at trial that four of the recipients were known to him as users of heroin.
On appeal, it was argued that such evidence was inadmissible and on examination of the basis of that assertion it was clear that the officer was relying upon information given to him by others and upon the general reputation that those four people had with the drug squad in Newcastle.
Where the prosecution wished to lead such evidence and objection was taken by the defence, the judge should enquire into the basis of the prosecution witness's evidence that the alleged recipient of the package from the defendant was a known user of the drug specified in the charge of unlawfully supplying the drug.
If the basis turned out to be statements made to the witness by others, including the alleged recipient, then the evidence should not be admitted. If the prosecution witness's statement was based on the alleged recipient's convictions for possession of the specified drug or, for example, observation of hypodermic needle marks on the alleged recipient's forearms, or on the fact that he had first-hand knowledge of the alleged recipient being in possession of the drug or receiving treatment for addiction to the drug, then the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Subject Index
...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) 99 Cr App R 388....... 119R v RT and MH [2002] 1 All ER 683, [2002]Crim LR 73 ............................................. 12, 13R v S (RD) [1997] 3 ......
-
Two English Hearsay Heresies
...Babiak (1974) 21 CCC (2nd) 464; R v Warner (1993) 96 Cr App R 324, 329ff.; R v MacIver (1996)153 NSR (2nd) 398; similar R v Rothwell (1994) 99 Cr App R 388, 394ff.; cf. Hirst, above n. 5 at65 (foreign spies entering house of suspected traitor).46 R v Wilkie (1950) 97 CCC 381.47 State v Lomb......