|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Cairns & Ors, R v  EWCA Crim 2838 (22 November 2002)
Cite as:  Crim LR 403,  1 WLR 796,  1 Cr App Rep 38,  1 Cr App R 38,  WLR 796,  EWCA Crim 2838
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report:  1 WLR 796] [Help]
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE FORBES
HIS HONOUR JUDGE RANT CB QC
|R E G I N A|
|ALISON LOUISE CAIRNS|
|ABDUL QAVAI CHAUDHARY|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR D SINCLAIR appeared on behalf of SAMINA ZAIDI
MR R SUTTON QC appeared on behalf of ABDUL CHAUDHARY
MR N PASCOE QC appeared on behalf of the Crown
Crown Copyright ©
Friday, 22nd October 2002
"His evidence cannot help the jury assess the overall picture of the crucial events. Hence it is not unfair that he should not be called."
"His evidence cannot help the jury,"
because in the prosecution's view his evidence is not capable of belief.
"It was not open to the prosecutor to attack her credit. All they could do was to point to inconsistencies, if they existed, between her evidence and other evidence or to point to matters upon which her evidence might be unreliable."
"In giving the evidence that he has, is he trying to limit his own involvement? Is he seeking to avoid incriminating those he would wish to protect, such as his family and friends? As a man with 6 years experience in the use and abuse of heroin, is he seeking to shift blame away from the real source of supply onto others who may be innocent, such as Abdul Chaudhary and Samina Zaidi? These are matters you will wish to consider."
"Look carefully at what he says, not only on its own but against the evidence in the case as a whole and if he has or may have a purpose or motive of his own to serve in giving evidence before you, then treat his evidence with caution, but look to see where the truth lies."
"The cases must be rare in which fellow conspirators can properly in the interests of justice be granted a separate trial."
"Any presumption of law that an offence committed by a wife in the presence of her husband is committed under the coercion of the husband is hereby abolished. But on a charge against a wife for any offence other than treason or murder, it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of and under the coercion of the husband."
"Coercion does not just mean physical force or the threat of physical force. She must show that it is more likely than not that her will was overborne by the wishes of her husband. In other words she was forced to participate."
"So how should you approach this? Firstly consider have the prosecution made you sure that Mrs Cairns was a party to an agreement to supply heroin? If you were to decide that she agreed to this conspiracy with any of Lee Callory, Samina Zaidi, Abdul C haudhary or Memet Hussain, in the absence of Barry Cairns, then marital coercion does not arise. If however you decide on the balance of probabilities that she entered into an agreement to supply heroin with her husband present and she was aware that there was another person involved then go to the second element, that is, are you satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offence was committed under the coercion of her husband?"
"For the purposes of this section, prosecution material is material (a) which is in the prosecutor's possession and came into his possession in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused or ... "
"Where this section applies
(a) the court or with the leave of the court, any other party may make such comment as appears appropriate;
(b) the court or jury may draw such inferences as appear proper in deciding whether the accused is guilty of the offence concerned."
"72. Then there was a complaint that the appellant did not receive the defence statements.
73. That is an argument which is in our judgment without foundation. The fact is that the statutory requirement is simply that the defence statements should be provided for the prosecution and to the court. There is no requirement that those statements should be passed on thereafter to other defence counsel. Whether or not that might be considered an appropriate procedural course may be for another day."
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights ...
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence."