Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Sole or Decisive Hearsay Evidence

Document Cited authorities 7 Cited in Related
AuthorAustin Stoton
DOI10.1350/jcla.2010.74.2.622
Published date01 April 2010
Date01 April 2010
JCL 74(2) dockie..JCL622 Supreme Court .. Page109 Supreme Court
Sole or Decisive Hearsay Evidence
R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14
Keywords
Admissibility; Hearsay; Sole or decisive; Reliability; Fairness
of trial; Absent witness; Counter-balancing measures
On 9 December 2009 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the
conjoined appeals of Horncastle and Blackmore and Marquis and Graham.
Each of the appellants had been convicted on indictment of a serious
criminal offence and had an appeal against conviction dismissed by the
Court of Appeal ([2009] EWCA Crim 964). The appellants appealed on
the ground that they did not receive a fair trial, contrary to Article 6 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. Each appeal was based on
the fact that the statement of a witness who had not been called to give
evidence was placed before the jury. In each case the witness was the
victim of the alleged offence.
H and B were convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, with intent,
to R. R had made a witness statement to the police about what had
happened to him. He died before the trial from causes not attributable to
the injuries that had been inflicted upon him. His statement was read at
the trial. Although there was other evidence that supported it, the Court
of Appeal concluded that the statement was ‘to a decisive degree’ the
basis upon which the appellants were convicted.
M and G were convicted of kidnapping a young woman, HM. She
made a witness statement to the police in which she described what
happened to her. The day before the appellants’ trial she ran away
because she was too frightened to give evidence. Her statement was read
to the jury. A considerable body of oral evidence was also given at the
trial. The Court of Appeal held that the appellants’ convictions did not
rest on the evidence of HM ‘to a decisive extent’.
R’s witness statement was admitted pursuant to s. 116(1) and (2)(a)
of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which makes admissible, subject to
conditions, the statement of a witness who cannot give evidence be-
cause he has died. HM’s witness statement was admitted pursuant to
s....

To continue reading

Request your trial

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