![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Pipe, R. v [2014] EWCA Crim 2570 (18 November 2014) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2014/2570.html Cite as: [2014] EWCA Crim 2570 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
![]() |
CRIMINAL
DIVISION
50 West Bar Sheffield S3 8PH |
||
![]() |
B e f o r
e :
(Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd)
and
MR JUSTICE COULSON
and
MR JUSTICE GLOBE
____________________
![]() ![]() |
||
- ![]() ![]() |
||
STEVEN ALLAN ![]() |
____________________
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
190 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone 020-7421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr R
J Doswell appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: I will ask Mr Justice Coulson to give the judgment of the court.
MR JUSTICE COULSON:
Introduction
The point in issue on the conviction appeal
The evidence in the case
The position at the time that the complainant's cross-examination was stopped
The Judge's Ruling
"She was breathing heavily and appeared to be hyperventilating. Her distress was tangible. I spoke to the lady attending her, the psychiatric nurse – I should say I had given her leave to enter theroom
with her. Her belief was that given time it might be possible that [the complainant] would be in a fit state to continue her evidence. That did not appear to me from my observations to be
realistic
and I was fortified in that because both counsel agreed. Defence counsel, Mr Greenhalgh, … had considerable
reservations,
understandably, about the jury seeing her in that condition or of even taking the
risk
that she might
return
to that condition before he had finished cross-examining her."
In all those circumstances the judge released
the complainant from giving any further evidence. In his
ruling
the judge went on to say that, notwithstanding that the cross-examination of the complainant was incomplete, the trial could and should continue. He said this:
"My primary consideration was of course whether the [appellant] could in those circumstances have a fair trial. I took theview
that he could and take the
view
that he has. The cross-examination of [the complainant] was substantially complete. The [appellant's] case had been fully put to her and dealt with by her and more than once it had been suggested to her that her allegations were false and she had
responded
to that. The potential motives and
reasons
why her allegations might be false had been explored with her.
Whatremained
was largely, if not entirely, medical
records
which might have
revealed,
depending on the jury's assessment, some inconsistencies in what she had said. Those
records
could, I believed, be
reduced
to agreed facts, and that is what has happened. What is missing and all that is significantly missing is her explanation of any of those
records.
The absence of her explanation, if any, does not in my judgment prejudice the [appellant], the jury having the
records
themselves. Furthermore, the evidence of the complainant was not and is not the sole evidence in this case; the [appellant] is said to have made an unambiguous admission of his offending to his former wife. I was therefore, and
remain,
satisfied that the trial could properly continue fairly and without prejudice to the [appellant]."
The Law
Analysis
The appeal against sentence