R v Tibbs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 2000 |
| Year | 2000 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL Criminal Division
Before Lord Justice Beldam, Mr Justice Dyson and Mr Justice Richards
Criminal procedure - 'defence statement' - meaning of
A "defence statement" was a convenient expression used to include the nature of the defence, the matters on which issue was taken and the reasons for taking issue. The word "defence" was not restricted to its general legal description.
Section 11 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 did not disallow or require leave for cross-examination of an accused on differences between his defence at trial and the defence statement he had served in accordance with section 5(5). Section 11 precluded comment or invitation to the jury to draw an inference from the differences unless the court gave leave.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in a reserved judgment dismissing the appeal of John Tibbs against his conviction in June 1999 at Snaresbrook Crown Court (Mr Recorder Kinch, QC and a jury) of supplying a controlled Class B drug to another, for which he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
Mr Andrew Turton, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Miss Anabel Darlow for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE BELDAM, giving the judgment of the court, said that the appellant was seen by police officers transferring black plastic sacks from his car to that of his co-defendant, Morse. Morse then gave the appellant a roll of money.
The appellant and Morse were arrested and the black plastic bags were found to contain cannabis resin and herbal cannabis to a value of Pounds 86,000.
The appellant's defence statement said that he had been asked to deliver three bin liners which he understood contained rolling tobacco; he had no suspicion that they contained cannabis. He was to collect Pounds 4,300 in cash and would be paid Pounds 100 for the delivery.
At trial he said in evidence that he was to receive a couple of thousand pounds and was to be paid Pounds 150. Miss Darlow applied to the recorder to be allowed to cross-examine the appellant as to those differences between his evidence and his defence statement.
In their Lordships' judgment that was not necessary. Section 11(3)(a) was not apposite to cover cross-examination; the section precluded comment or invitation to the jury to draw an inference from the differences unless the court gave leave.
Mr Turton argued that a distinction had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
References Between John Barclay+william James Bain+her Majesty's Advocate+douglas Mclean+her Majesty's Advocate
...1 Cr App R 22; [2004] Crim LR 157 R v RochfordUNKWLRUNK [2010] EWCA Crim 1928; [2011] 1 WLR 534; [2011] 1 Cr App R 11 R v TibbsUNKUNK [2000] 2 Cr App R 309; [2001] Crim LR 759 Saunders v UKHRCUNKUNK (1997) 23 EHRR 313; [1997] BCC 872; [1998] 1 BCLC 362; 2 BHRC 358 Thomson v BurnsUNK [2009] ......
-
Hugh Orde, Esq. Chief Constable v Paul Michael Burns
...or any part of it, constitutes a Defence Statement, triggering secondary disclosure under the 1996 Act. 15. In the case of R v Tibbs [2000] 2 Cr.App.R. 309, at pages 314 et sequi., there is a helpful treatment upon the nature of a Defence Statement, in view of the terms of Section 5(6); … M......
-
R v Robert Webber, Paul Ashton, Paul Steven Lyons
...and Investigations Act 1996, section 5; Practice Direction (Crown Court: Plea and Directions Hearings) [1995] 1 WLR 1318, paragraph 10(a); R v Tibbs [2000] 2 Cr App R 309, 314-315. Should a trial judge be in doubt whether counsel is testing the prosecution evidence or advancing a positive......
-
R v Cairns; R v Zaidi; R v Chaudhary
...On behalf of the Crown Mr Pascoe submits that a strict construction of Section 5(5) should be adhered to, as this court held in the case of R v Tibbs [2000] 2 Cr App R 309. The requirement to provide a defence statement interferes with an accused person's right to silence and his privilege ......
-
Subject Index
...2003, Docket C35319........................................................ 279R v Templer [2003] NZCA 85 ........... 277R v Tibbs [2000] 2 Cr App R 309 ...... 115R v Tobin [2002] EWCA Crim 190 .. 203R v Togher [2001] 3 All ER 463.............................................. 32, 33, 60R v ......
-
Embracing the Overriding Objective: Difficulties and Dilemmas in the New Criminal Climate
...the case efficiently and expeditiously’.See Karia v DPP [2002] EWHC 2175 (Admin). 13 For example, R v Tibbs [2000] All ER (D) 95, [2000] 2 Cr App R 309; Leeson v DPP [2000] RTR 385; R v Jisl [2004] EWCA Crim 696, [2004] All ER (D) 31 (April) at [114], per Judge LJ; cf. R v Chaaban [2003] EW......
-
The Evolution of the Defence Statement
...a recognised defence within English law 23 Above n. 22 at 158, per Potter LJ.24 [2002] EWHC 967 (Admin).25 (1985) 81 Cr App R 139. 26 [2000] 2 Cr App R 309.27 See also R v Bryant [2005] EWCA Crim 2079.28 Unreported, 8 February 2000, Transcript No. 199905179/Y4.29 [2003] EWCA Crim The Evolut......
-
Noticeboard
...of the defence case, not just a change in the category (for example, ‘selfdefence’, ‘identification’) of defence relied upon: Tibbs [2000] 2 Cr App R 309. United Kingdom-tluman Rights Act and appeals Two recent Court of Appeal decisions consider the relationship between its own approach to ......