![]() |
[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 >> Jones, R v [2015] EWCA Crim 1317 (03 July 2015) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/1317.html Cite as: (2016) 180 JP 132, 180 JP 132, [2015] EWCA Crim 1317 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE WALKER
HIS HONOUR JUDGE ZEIDMAN QC
(Sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
v | ||
![]() |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Miss T Wolfe appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"'Whether oral evidence of the matter statement can be given, and if not why it cannot'. That is [subsection] '(g)'. I do not need to deal with that."
In fact, the judge did need to deal with this issue. It is quite clear to us that if he did so he would have necessarily articulated the reasons why he considered that the complainant was not present in court and was not able to give evidence in accordance with her statement before the jury, and which in turn would have informed an application for the admission of hearsay evidence pursuant to section 116 of the Act. That is, to say if he was satisfied that the complainant could not be located and the reason for her not being located was, as it subsequently transpired could have been the case, a deliberate attempt to prevent her from doing so by or on behalf of the appellant, whether the appellant had been personally responsible instigating that situation or not.