Myers, R v.

The House of Lords held that in a joint trial a co-defendant may, in support of his own defence, adduce relevant out‑of‑court statements or confessions made by another defendant who is a party to the proceedings, provided the statements are voluntary and not rendered inadmissible by the specific safeguards in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (notably section 76(2) on oppression/unreliability). The hearsay rule does not automatically bar a party's own admissions from being led by a co-defendant in this way, although the co-defendant cannot be put in a better evidential position than the Crown where the confession is inadmissible for reasons going to its reliability or fairness. The trial judge must ensure relevance and guard against unfairness; section 78 PACE does not by its terms permit exclusion of evidence sought to be led by a defendant if it refers only to evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely.

This was an appeal against conviction in a joint murder trial where the key issue concerned the admissibility of confessions made by the appellant, Myers, to police officers after her arrest. Those statements admitted she had stabbed the victim but were not relied on by the Crown because of breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and associated Code of Practice. The co-defendant, Quartey, sought to rely on those out‑of‑court confessions in support of his defence that Myers and not he had inflicted the fatal wound.

The appellant had applied for separate trials; the trial judge refused and both defendants were tried together. The trial judge allowed evidence of Myers' police statements to be elicited on behalf of Quartey. Myers was convicted of murder and appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords and certified a question of law about whether a confession by one defendant, exculpating another but inadmissible for the Crown, could nonetheless be adduced by the co-defendant or whether such material always offended the hearsay rule.

The issues framed were (i) whether the hearsay rule prevents a co-defendant from putting before the jury an admission made by another defendant who is a party to the proceedings, and (ii) whether the fact that a confession is inadmissible against its maker by reason of PACE defects (including Code breaches) prevents a co-defendant from adducing it. The Law Lords examined precedent (in particular the apparently conflicting Court of Appeal decisions in Reg v Beckford and Daley and Reg v Campbell and Williams) and authority such as Reg v Blastland, Reg v Rowson and Privy Council/Supreme Court authorities on cross-examination and the rights of co-defendants.

The House resolved the conflicting authorities by preferring the reasoning in Campbell and Williams: where a statement is made by a defendant (a party) it is not hearsay in the same way as a third party's statement and may be admissible when relevant to a co-defendant's case. However, a co-defendant cannot be placed in a better position than the Crown if the confession is inadmissible because it was obtained by oppression or is unreliable within the meaning of section 76(2) PACE; in such circumstances exclusion may be appropriate. Section 78 PACE, being directed to prosecution evidence, does not by itself operate to exclude evidence sought to be led by a defendant. Applying these principles to the facts (the statements were voluntary and relevant and there was no suggestion of section 76(2) grounds), the House dismissed Myers' appeal and upheld the admission of the confessions at Quartey's instance.

Appeal dismissed. The House held that a co-defendant may adduce relevant admissions/confessions made by another defendant who is a party to the proceedings so long as they are voluntary and not rendered inadmissible by the safeguards in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (notably section 76(2) on oppression/unreliability); the hearsay rule does not automatically bar such party admissions, but a co-defendant cannot be in a better evidential position than the prosecution where the confession is excluded for reasons going to its reliability or fairness.

Trial at first instance (convictions: Myers convicted of murder, Quartey of manslaughter). Appeal to the Court of Appeal dismissed [1996] 2 Cr.App.R. 335 (court gave leave to appeal to the House and certified a question of law). Appeal to the House of Lords: [1997] UKHL 36; appeal dismissed.