R v West (Rosemary Pauline)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 1996 |
| Date | 02 April 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Taylor of Gosforth, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Mitchell and Mr Justice Newman
Criminal procedure - payments by media to witnesses
The question of payments by the media to potential witnesses at a trial required to be reviewed: whether they should be prohibited, or if allowed, at what stage of criminal proceedings and with what, if any, control.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth, Lord Chief Justice, so stated when delivering reserved reasons of the Court of Appeal for having refused on March 19 leave to appeal by Rosemary Pauline West against conviction at Winchester Crown Court (Mr Justice Mantell and a jury) on 10 counts of murder, for which she was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count, the trial judge recommending that she should never be released.
His Lordship said that the answer to the issues raised by the question were not for their Lordships, who had been told that the Attorney-General had been apprised in October 1994 of the the press payments and that consideration was being given to the problems raised by them.
Mr Richard Ferguson, QC and Miss Sasha Wass, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the applicant; Mr Brian Leveson, QC and Mr Andrew Chubb for the Crown.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE reviewed the facts and grounds of appeal.
Turning to press coverage in advance of the trial his Lordship said that there was no doubt that it had been extensive and hostile to the applicant and her husband Fred West, who had committed suicide. Much of it had been directed at Fred and there were references to "House of Horrors".
There had been criticism of the authorities for failing to stop West's murderous course when he had been before a magistrates' court with the applicant in 1973. True, there had been also reports adverse to the applicant, referring to her as a nymphomaniac and a prostitute.
But, however lurid the reporting, there could scarcely ever have been a case more calculated to shock the public who were entitled to know the facts.
The question raised on behalf of the defence had been whether a fair trial could be held after such intensive publicity adverse to the accused.
In their Lordships' view it could. To hold otherwise would mean that if allegations of murder were sufficiently horrendous so as inevitably to shock the nation, the accused could not be tried. That would be absurd.
Moreover, provided that the judge effectively warned the jury to act only on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Nevin
...and they are worth referring to in the judgment. Mr. Charleton has referred the court to the notorious Rosemary West case [1996] 2 Cr. App. R. 374. In that case the publicity issue came before the Criminal Division of the English Court of Appeal (Lord Taylor C.J., Mitchell and Newman JJ.) L......
-
DPP v Anthony McCarthy and Others
...that gangland feuding is continuing in Limerick mean that no trial by jury of the applicants could ever take place? 89 In R v. West [1996] 2 CR. App. R. 374, Lord Taylor C.J., in addressing publicity issues in that notorious case stated at p. 386:- "The question raised on behalf of the defe......
-
The People (at the suit of the DPP) v Clement Limen
...it becomes unlikely that the bodies of the murder victims found in their back garden were killed without her collusion; R v West [1996] 2 Cr App R 374. These are matters of logic, ones where potential prejudice is seen as diminished by the strength of common 26 These cases are the apogee o......
-
Attorney General v Random House Group Ltd
...v. British Broadcasting Corporation [1997] E.M.L.R. 76 and emphasised afresh by Lord Taylor of Gosforth C.J. in Reg. v. West [1996] 2 Cr.App.R. 374, to the effect that juries generally can be expected to comply with their oaths and to decide cases solely according to the evidence put before......
-
The prisoners could not have that fair and impartial trial which justice demands': A fair criminal trial in 19th Century Australia
...at 603 per Mason CJ and Toohey J, 614–615 per Brennan J; R v Yuill (1993) 69 A Crim R 450 (NSWCCA) at 453–454 per Kirby ACJ; R v West [1996] 2 Cr App R 374 (EWCA Crim) at 385–386 per Lord Taylor CJ; R v Stone [2001] EWCA Crim 297 at [48], [50]; R v Abu-Hamza [2007] QB 659 at 682, 685–686 pe......
-
The Role of Gender in Judicial Decision-Making: Similar Fact Evidence, the Rose West Trial and beyond
...acquittals or non-criminalbehaviour it does indicate the rarity with which similar fact evidence is used.4 Discussed below.5R v West [1996] 2 Cr App R 374.6R v Z [2000] 3 WLR 117, discussed THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 33THE ROLE OF GENDER IN JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING: ROSE ......
-
Privy Council
...Boodram, especiallyin the Court of Appeal (1994) 47 WIR 459 and, in the domestic context,R vKray (1969) 53 Cr App R 412 and R vWest [1996] 2 Cr App R 374;though the distinctions drawn in Attorney-General vTimes Newspapers(The Times, 12 February 1983) might suggest that the more reasoned the......
-
Prosecuting Domestic Violence without Victim Participation
...Law of Evidence (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1999) 587.108 [1952] 2 QB 911.109 [1911] AC 47, HL.110 [1918] AC 221, HL. See also RvWest [1996] 2 Cr App R 374.111 P. Carter, ‘Forbidden Reasoning Permissible: Similar Fact Evidence a Decade After Boardman’(1985) 48 Modern Law Review 29, 36. See al......