![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 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 >> The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions >> Laing v The Queen (Bermuda) [2013] UKPC 14 (14 May 2013) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2013/14.html Cite as: [2014] 1 Cr App R 2, [2013] WLR(D) 198, [2013] WLR 2670, [2013] 1 WLR 2670, [2013] UKPC 14 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[View ICLR summary: [2013] WLR(D) 198]
[Buy ICLR report: [2013] 1 WLR 2670]
[Help]
[2013] UKPC 14
Privy Council Appeal No 0057 of 2012
JUDGMENT
AndrewLaing
(Appellant)
v
![]()
The Queen
(Respondent)
Fromthe
Court of Appeal of Bermuda
before
Lord Hope
Lord Kerr
Lord Reed
JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY
LORD HOPE
ON
14 MAY 2013
Heard on 23 April 2013
Appellant Edward Fitzgerald QC Ruth Brander (Instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton) |
Respondent Howard Stevens QC Rory Field Cindy Clarke (Instructed by Charles Russell LLP) |
LORD HOPE:
"Appeal sentence abandoned. No merit warranting call onthe
Crown. Satisfied direction adequate. Appeal dismissed. Conviction affirmed. Application for leave to appeal sentence refused. Sentence affirmed."
There is no other record of what could be said to have been the
court's reasons. We do not know what further explanation, if any, was given.
"We have considered your response carefully with counsel. We accept thatthe
judge's directions are not so defective as to warrant an appeal to
the
Privy Council. However, we do consider that there was a serious breach of
the
appellant's constitutional rights by
the
denial of reasons, in relation to a difficult issue of law as to
the
appropriate warning in an accomplice case, especially in
the
new statutory regime after
the
abrogation of
the
requirements of a formal corroboration ruling in accomplice cases."
"It is a matter forthe
judge's discretion what, if any warning, he considers appropriate in respect of such a witness as indeed in respect of any other witness in whatever type of case. Whether he chooses to give a warning and in what terms will depend on
the
circumstances of
the
case,
the
issues raised and
the
content and quality of
the
witness's evidence."
Mr Fitzgerald said that the
real point he wanted to make was that Ms Iereria's evidence was inherently dangerous, and that
the
warning that was needed was not given. Mr Stevens said in reply that there was no evidence that section 32(3) had caused any difficulty in Bermuda, that Lord Taylor's observation was plainly applicable there too, that
the
situation in this case was very similar to that with which he was dealing in that case and that
the
trial judge's direction was both appropriate and adequate.