Warnick, R v

The interests-of-justice gateway in section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 cannot be used to admit hearsay evidence when the statutory conditions for admission under section 116 have not been met. To do so would defeat the safeguards enacted by Parliament.

However, a conviction remains safe despite a wrongful hearsay ruling where the admissible evidence independently provides a cogent and compelling basis for the jury’s verdict.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Liverpool of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that he drove a car from which he and a passenger attacked the complainant with a crowbar.

At trial, the judge admitted a bystander’s hearsay statement identifying the car’s registration number. The judge had rejected admission under section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but admitted the statement under section 114(1)(d).

The appeal concerned whether that ruling was lawful and, if not, whether the remaining identification, circumstantial, and alibi evidence nonetheless made the conviction safe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The hearsay statement ought not to have been admitted, but the conviction was safe.
2. The judge had rejected the section 116 application because a statutory condition was not established: the maker of the statement was not identified to the court’s satisfaction. The judge was therefore wrong to admit the same evidence under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The interests-of-justice power cannot circumvent the conditions imposed by section 116. That would nullify Parliament’s safeguards.
3. The court also observed that, if the witness might have been willing to give oral evidence after being properly informed of available safeguards, it was difficult to see how the section 114(2)(g) consideration concerning the availability of oral evidence could have supported admission.
4. The error did not make the conviction unsafe. Independently of the hearsay, the complainant identified the appellant as the driver. There was powerful circumstantial evidence linking the appellant and his car to the incident. His account of his alibi also materially changed after evidence emerged that the car had been recorded on the Formby bypass.
5. Those matters provided cogent evidence from which the jury could properly infer guilt. The court therefore dismissed the appeal against conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against conviction dismissed.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: on 19 November 2012, the appellant was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment.