BOB & Ors, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal by the prosecution against a ruling made by the trial judge on 18 July 2024, which excluded a series of hearsay witness statements from two deceased witnesses as inadmissible. The prosecution complied with all procedural requirements for the appeal, including an undertaking that the respondents would be acquitted unless the prosecution succeeded. Following the judge’s ruling, the jury was discharged. The delay in judgment was due to directions for further disclosure and additional written submissions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in law or principle in ruling the hearsay statements of the deceased witnesses inadmissible.
2. Whether the hearsay statements were demonstrably reliable or their reliability was capable of proper testing and assessment by the jury under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
3. Whether the prosecution complied with disclosure obligations relevant to assessing the reliability of hearsay evidence.
4. The proper application and possible reformulation of the six-step framework for hearsay admissibility established in R v Riat.
5. The role of section 125 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in safeguarding against unsafe convictions based on hearsay evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R. v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14; [2010] 1 Cr App R 17	Framework for admissibility of hearsay evidence, focusing on demonstrable reliability or capacity for testing reliability.	Read together with the Court of Appeal decision to establish the legal principles governing hearsay evidence in this appeal.
R v Riat [2012] EWCA Crim 1509; [2013] Cr. App. R. 2	Practical guidance on applying the hearsay admissibility framework, including a six-step process.	Used as the primary framework for analysis; the court identified flaws in the trial judge’s application and proposed a reformulation of the steps.
R v Ali [2024] EWCA Crim 77	Clarification that judges may rule on admissibility through multiple legal routes without procedural error.	Clarified that the trial judge’s dual-route exclusion was appropriate in principle, though the reasoning was flawed in this case.
R v TM [2020] EWCA Crim 1343	Requirement for courts to consider all evidence when evaluating safety of conviction under section 125.	Supported the court’s emphasis on section 125 as an important safeguard following admission of hearsay evidence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the trial judge’s ruling under the statutory framework of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the established case law, particularly the six-step process from R v Riat. The key issues were whether the hearsay statements of the two deceased witnesses were either demonstrably reliable or their reliability could be properly tested and assessed by the jury.

The court identified two principal flaws in the trial judge’s reasoning: first, the judge failed to properly consider that the statements were largely agreed by the defence and supported by strong independent dovetailing and supporting evidence; second, the judge focused excessively on flaws in the statements themselves without appreciating that such flaws enabled the jury to test reliability rather than warranted exclusion.

The court emphasised the importance of disclosure obligations under section 124, which allow evidence undermining the credibility of hearsay makers to be presented to the jury. In this case, the prosecution failed to disclose all relevant material, including initial spontaneous accounts recorded on police body-worn video, and information about the circumstances of the final statement of one witness.

The court also noted that the change in the witnesses’ accounts did not affect the core disputed facts, as the defendants’ presence in the flat and the assault were undisputed or supported by independent evidence. The identification of the defendants was made more reliable by the witnesses’ familiarity with them and corroborating evidence such as video recordings.

The court proposed a reformulation of the Riat six steps into seven steps, adding an initial step focused on ensuring full disclosure to enable proper assessment of hearsay reliability. It emphasized that the court must consider the importance of the hearsay evidence to the case and the issues at trial, and that the exclusionary powers under section 78 of PACE and section 126 of the 2003 Act must be applied with proper reasoning.

Finally, the court highlighted the significance of section 125 as a safeguard to be considered at the close of all evidence, allowing the court to stop a case if the hearsay evidence is so unconvincing that conviction would be unsafe. This prospective approach encourages courts to be cautiously optimistic about the jury’s ability to assess hearsay reliability with appropriate directions.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the trial judge's ruling excluding the hearsay statements was wrong in law and not a reasonable ruling to make. The prosecution’s appeal was allowed, and the hearsay statements were ruled admissible.

The case will be retried before a different judge, who will be required to consider the position under section 125 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 after all evidence has been adduced to determine whether the case should proceed to the jury.

No new precedent was set beyond the reformulation of the hearsay admissibility steps, which clarifies and expands the existing framework from R v Riat. The decision underscores the necessity of full and proper disclosure by the prosecution in hearsay applications and reinforces the safeguards available to defendants when hearsay evidence is admitted.