Hansard

Evidence

Volume 263: debated on Monday 17 July 1995

Download text
Back to top Previous debate Next debate
The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Lords amendment: No. 2, to leave out clause 4 and insert the following new clause—

(".—(1) In section 23 of the 1968 Act (evidence)—

  • (a) in subsection (1) (power to receive evidence etc.), for paragraph (c) substitute—
  • "(c) receive any evidence which was not adduced in the proceedings from which the appeal lies.",
  • (b) for subsection (2) (duty to receive evidence in certain circumstances) substitute—

    • "(2) The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to—

  • (a) whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;
  • (b) whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
  • (c) whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
  • (d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.", and

    • (c) in subsection (3), after "any" insert "evidence of a".

    (2) In section 25 of the 1980 Act (evidence)—

  • (a) in subsection (1) (power to receive evidence etc.), for paragraph (c) substitute—
  • "(c) receive any evidence which was not adduced at the trial.",
  • (b) for subsection (2) (duty to receive evidence in certain circumstances) substitute—

    • "(2) The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to—

  • (a) whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;
  • (b) whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
  • (c) whether the evidence would have been admissible at the trial on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
  • (d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence at the trial.", and

    • (c) in subsection (3), after "any" insert "evidence of a".")

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
    (Mr. Nicholas Baker)

    I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

    Madam Deputy Speaker
    (Dame Janet Fookes)

    With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 34, 47, 48 and 52 to 54.

    Mr. Baker

    The amendments are all concerned with the receipt of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, and by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, which operate the same procedures. At present, section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 contains two separate provisions on the receipt of evidence on appeal. The relationship between them is somewhat complex and has given rise to difficulties for the Court of Appeal. It has created room for argument in appeal hearings about whether the court should receive evidence under the narrow, qualified duty in subsection (2) or under its general discretion in subsection (1).

    We have therefore taken the opportunity to devise amendments to improve the construction of section 23. They are intended to provide a unified test for the receipt of fresh evidence which reflects the current practice of the Court of Appeal. We intend that the amendments should not in any way narrow the scope for the receipt of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal. The Lord Chief Justice, when supporting the amendments in another place, confirmed that they would in no way lessen the likelihood of fresh evidence being received on appeal. He said that he could think of no occasion on which evidence received under the present section 23 would not be received under the new section proposed in the new clause 4.

    Lords amendment agreed to.