R v Riat
The Court of Appeal set out the steps a trial judge must follow in deciding whether to admit hearsay under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, emphasising that hearsay is not to be admitted merely because it is convenient.
Facts
In five conjoined appeals, the Court of Appeal considered the admission of hearsay evidence, mainly the statements of witnesses who were absent from trial, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in R v Horncastle and the Grand Chamber in Al-Khawaja v United Kingdom. The appeals raised questions about how judges should apply the statutory safeguards.
Legal principle
Hughes LJ, giving the judgment of the court, set out the steps a judge should follow: first, is there a specific statutory justification or gateway permitting the admission of the hearsay evidence; second, what material is there which can help to test or assess the hearsay; third, is there a specific statutory justification for exclusion, under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or section 125 of the 2003 Act; and fourth, if the evidence is admitted, should the case be stopped under section 125 because it is unconvincing. He said that hearsay is not to be admitted simply because it is relevant and the witness is not available, and that the judge must consider the reliability of the evidence and the importance of it to the case.
Related cases on hearsay
- Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom (2012) 54 EHRR 23
- Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] AC 1001
- R v Andrews [1987] AC 281
- R v Blastland [1986] AC 41
- R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14, [2010] 2 AC 373
- R v Kearley [1992] 2 AC 228
- R v Y [2008] EWCA Crim 10
- Ratten v The Queen [1972] AC 378
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
