In the context of a mother’s application to commit her children’s father to prison for making false statements of truth and breaching court orders in connection with securing the return of the children from Nigeria, the court considered that transcripts of conversations between the father and another man, which took place whilst the father was serving a prison sentence, were admissible. Although the transcripts had been improperly obtained, their provision had been a mistake rather than a deliberate act.
In the context of a continuing offence, the speciality rule did not preclude the Serious Fraud Office from adducing evidence of conduct which fell outside the relevant time period to prove the commission of an offence which fell within it. The rule was concerned with offences, not evidence.
A magistrates’ court which purported to exercise its power under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.142 to reverse a previous decision to admit bad character evidence had erred because that section was only available in the case of an offender and not where a person was charged with an offence. The Administrative Court had jurisdiction to deal with such a matter while criminal proceedings were ongoing, but the instant decision should not be taken as encouragement to challenge interlocutory decisions in criminal proceedings by judicial review.
A magistrates’ court had not properly exercised its discretion in finding that it was in the interests of justice to allow a complainant’s written statement to be admitted under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.114(1)(d) where the appellant had failed to adequately particularise the areas of dispute for the trial, the appellant had required the complainant’s attendance at trial, the court had allowed time for the evidence and the complainant had attended to give evidence.
Where the prosecution relied on telephone evidence, the raw phone data was not to be served as part of the prosecution case.