Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a prosecution appeal against a Crown Court ruling (the "Ruling") excluding a series of witness statements from two deceased witnesses (referred to in the judgment as Witness 1 and Witness 2) as inadmissible hearsay. The trial judge excluded the statements; the jury was discharged and the prosecution undertook that the respondents would be acquitted unless the appeal succeeded. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal and allowed it, ruling that the hearsay statements are admissible and remitting the matter for trial before a different judge, with directions about disclosure and the trial judge's duties under section 125 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The opinion also records that a retrial took place in January 2026 resulting in convictions of all four defendants (the most serious conviction being inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861); the First Defendant received a suspended sentence order and the other three defendants received community orders.

Material factual background relevant to the admissibility issue (as stated in the opinion): four defendants travelled from The City to The City and stayed in a one‑bedroom flat occupied by Witness 1 (tenant) and Witness 2. The pair were stabbed in the flat on 18 March 2019. Witness 3 (a passer‑by) filmed the injured occupants exiting the flat and reported seeing four males run to a white car. Physical and forensic evidence linked the defendants to the car and to the flat (video and images from a defendant's phone, fingerprint/palm marks on the bedroom door, knives found in the flat with blood and DNA, ANPR/CCTV and receipts). Witness 1 and Witness 2 each gave early spontaneous accounts recorded on police bodyworn cameras; later statements were taken in hospital. Witness 2 subsequently made a further statement changing key aspects of his earlier account (explaining the defendants had been staying in the flat and had been allowed to do so), a change central to the judge's exclusion decision. Defence Statements from each defendant admitted presence in the flat and drug activity; the Second Defendant admitted stabbing under claim of duress, others denied participation or asserted coercion.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge's ruling excluding the hearsay statements of the two deceased witnesses was wrong, within the meaning of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (i.e. wrong in law, involving an error of law or principle, or not a reasonable ruling).
2. Whether the hearsay statements were admissible under the statutory framework in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (in particular whether they were demonstrably reliable or, if not, whether their reliability could be properly tested and assessed by the jury), as informed by R. v Horncastle and R v. Riat.
3. Whether the prosecution had complied with disclosure obligations necessary to enable the court to assess admissibility (including the availability of bodyworn camera footage and material explaining the circumstances in which Witness 2's final statement was made).
4. Whether exclusionary powers (s.78 PACE and s.126 CJA 2003) or the safety check under s.125 CJA 2003 justified exclusion or stopping the case even if the statements were otherwise admissible.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Prosecution)

• The excluded statements should be admitted: they were supported by independent dovetailing/supporting evidence (video footage from defendants' phone, forensic links to the flat and car, identification procedures) and early spontaneous accounts on police bodyworn cameras that test reliability.
• The prosecution undertook that the respondents would be acquitted unless the appeal succeeded, and sought review of the trial judge's application of the statutory hearsay tests (CJA 2003 and authorities).
• The prosecution accepted there had been disclosure deficiencies and provided further material and a witness statement explaining the circumstances of Witness 2's later statement when ordered by the Court of Appeal.

Respondents' Arguments (Defence)

• The trial judge excluded the statements on grounds of unreliability and inconsistencies (notably Witness 2's change of account); the defence relied on that ruling.
• The defendants emphasised the prosecution's initial disclosure failures and objected to the use of additional material provided on the court's direction in the course of the appeal (arguing that fresh evidence should not be adduced on appeal under s.58 CJA 2003).
• Each Defence Statement admitted presence and drug activity in the flat but advanced different accounts of participation: the Second Defendant admitted stabbing under duress; others denied stabbing or claimed coercion/modern‑slavery type circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the statutory test in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the authorities (Horncastle and Riat). It analysed whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the reliability of the deceased witnesses' statements could not be safely assessed and therefore that they were inadmissible.

Key points of analysis (as stated in the opinion):

• The judge had relied on perceived flaws and inconsistencies in the statements (notably Witness 2's later change of account) but failed properly to take into account substantial independent dovetailing and supporting evidence (defence admissions about presence, video footage from a defendant's phone dated 16–17 March, forensic links to the car and flat, identification procedures and early bodyworn footage of initial accounts).
• Witness 2's later statement (changing account about whether the defendants had been staying in the flat) was material but did not negate the core fact that the complainants were stabbed in their flat; the change of account cohered with the defendants' Defence Statements and with independent evidence placing the defendants in the flat before 18 March 2019.
• The prosecution's disclosure in the Crown Court was inadequate (notably failure to disclose bodyworn footage and full materials explaining the circumstances of Witness 2's final statement). The Court of Appeal ordered further disclosure and received a statement from the officer in charge explaining how material from a defendant's phone led to re‑contacting Witness 2 and obtaining his third statement.
• The judge's alternative exclusion under s.78/PACE and s.126 CJA 2003 (Riat step (v)) was difficult to reconcile with his finding at step (ii) that the reliability could not be safely assessed; the Court held there was no proper basis to exclude at step (v) evidence that is admissible at step (ii).
• The court re‑formulated the Riat six steps into seven (adding an explicit initial disclosure step and expanding the step on material to test hearsay, and the step on s.125), to assist application of the law in future cases.
• On the facts, having considered all material (including additional disclosure and the officer's statement), the Court concluded the judge's ruling was wrong and not a reasonable ruling to make; the hearsay statements were therefore admissible and the appeal was allowed.
• The Court emphasised the trial judge's obligation, at the appropriate time (generally at the close of all the evidence), to carry out the s.125 safety evaluation and, if necessary, stop the case or direct acquittal or retrial.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED — THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE.

Direct consequences recorded in the opinion:

• The Court of Appeal allowed the prosecution's appeal, ruling that the trial judge's exclusion was wrong and unreasonable.
• The case was remitted for trial before a different judge, with directions that the trial judge must consider disclosure, apply the statutory hearsay framework (as reformulated) and undertake the s.125 safety check at the appropriate stage.
• The Court emphasised prosecution disclosure obligations in hearsay applications where the evidence is important, and the need for trial judges to consider the s.125 safeguard at the judge's initiative if necessary.
• The opinion records that the retrial occurred in January 2026 and resulted in convictions of all four defendants (the most serious offence being inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s.20 OAPA 1861); the First Defendant received a suspended sentence order and the other three defendants received community orders.

Note: This summary is derived solely from the provided judgment text and anonymises all personal identifiers as required.