Taylor, R. v

Under section 114(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a trial judge must consider the listed factors and any other relevant matters when deciding whether hearsay evidence is admissible in the interests of justice. The provision does not require the judge to investigate each factor, receive further evidence, or reach a concluded finding on every factor.

The judge must exercise an evaluative discretion by weighing the factors individually and together. A conviction will not be unsafe where that discretion was properly exercised and substantial independent evidence supports guilt.

The applicant was convicted at Maidstone Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent after a youth was attacked and repeatedly kicked. He was sentenced to three-and-a-half years’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

Two prosecution witnesses identified the applicant in video-recorded interviews after learning his name from others. The defence contended that those references were inadmissible hearsay. The trial judge admitted them under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. After it emerged that one identification involved double hearsay, the judge declined to revisit the ruling.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction. The central issue was the meaning of the requirement in section 114(2) that the court have regard to the listed factors.

1. The application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The conviction was not unsafe.
2. Section 114(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a judge deciding whether hearsay is admissible in the interests of justice to consider the specified factors, together with any others considered relevant. It does not require an investigation into every factor, the hearing of further evidence, or a concluded finding on each factor.
3. The statutory task is evaluative. The judge must consider the individual significance of the factors and their combined weight before deciding whether the evidence should be admitted. The trial judge had followed that process and his exercise of discretion could not be effectively challenged.
4. The fact that the source and reliability of the persons who supplied the applicant’s name were unknown did not compel exclusion. The evidence was probative of identity and could be tested against the accounts of the other eyewitnesses.
5. When the double-hearsay point later arose, it was open to the judge to decline to revisit the original ruling, particularly because the jury had already heard the evidence. There was also a considerable body of independent evidence implicating the applicant, including eyewitness and forensic evidence. Accordingly, there was no basis for regarding the conviction as unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applicant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused: [2006] EWCA Crim 260.
• Maidstone Crown Court: On 15 September 2005, the applicant was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. On 16 September 2005, he was sentenced to three-and-a-half years’ detention.