Pre-verdict judicial fact-finding in criminal trials with juries

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-24

  Pattenden, Rosemary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 62549141854     PISSN: 01436503     EISSN: 14643820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqn028     Document Type: Article

References (322)

1. B Shapiro, A Culture of Fact, England 1550-1720 (Cornell, Ithaca 2000) 10.
2. Cf. R v Poole (1815) Cas Term Hard 23, 28.
3. 'The jury is the master of the facts. The judge is the master of the law' per Bastarche J, Daley v R 2007 SCC 53, [28].
4. This article ignores legislative (normative) facts, as to which see K Davis, 'An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process' (1942) 55 HLR 364-425.
5. J Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law (1898, Rothman Reprint, New Jersey 1969) 184-7.
6. J Hawles, The English-man's Right. A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Jury-man (Printed for Richard Janeway, London 1680) 8.
7. Eunomus: Or Dialogues concerning the Law and Constitution of England vol iii (2nd edn B White, London 1785) 227 (emphasis added).
8. Opportunities for pre-verdict judicial fact-finding in criminal trials were enumerated by S Phillipps, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence vol 1 (2nd edn Butterworth, London 1815) 13.
9. For an exception, see R Mahoney, 'Proving Preliminary Facts' [1993] 15 NZULR 225-45.
10. Articles include, D Thomas, 'Establishing a Factual Basis for Sentencing' [1970] Crim LR 80-90
11. R Fox and R O'Brien, 'Fact Finding for Sentencers' (1975) 10 Melb ULR 163-206
12. M Wasik, 'Rules of Evidence in the Sentencing Process' (1985) 38 CLP 187-209
13. NZLRC, Proof of Disputed Facts on Sentence Report 76 (Wellington 2001)
14. A Ashworth, Sentencing and Criminal Justice (CUP, Cambridge 2005) 342.
15. Articles include, J Hirschfeld, 'Proof of Foreign Law' (1895) 11 LQR 241-7
16. I Hunter, 'Proving Foreign and International Law in the Courts of England and Wales' (1977) 18 Va J Int'l L 665-96
17. R Fentiman, Foreign Law in English Courts (OUP, Oxford 1998)
18. S Geeroms, Foreign Law in Civil Litigation (OUP, Oxford 2004)
19. J McComish, 'Pleading and Proving Foreign Law in Australia' (2007) 31 Melb ULR 400-42.
20. On how invasion of the jury's fact-finding province is avoided where there is overlap, see R Pattenden, 'The Proof Rules of Pre-Verdict Judicial Fact-Finding in Criminal Trials by Jury' (2009) 125 LQR 79-110, 99.
21. Cf. M Damaska, 'Truth in Adjudication' (1997) 49 Hastings LJ 289-308, 291-2.
22. I Dennis, The Law of Evidence (3rd edn Sweet & Maxwell, London 2007) 500.
23. Occasionally primary evidence is augmented or replaced by judicial notice (facts which no reasonable person would dispute) as to which see Dennis (n 13), 514 and legal presumptions at 508.
24. Cf. A Ligertwood, 'The Uncertainty of Proof' (1976) 10 Melb ULR 367-91, 376, 390.
25. Damaska (n 12) 295.
26. R v Yacoob (1981) 72 Cr App R 313 and see now PACE, s 80(3)
27. Cf. Miles v US 103 US 304, 314-5 (1880)
28. Matz v US 158 F 3d 190, 192 (1946).
29. Cf. P Tillers, 'The Value of Evidence in Law' (1988) 39 NILQ 167-76, 168-9
30. G Lawson, 'Proving the Law' (1992) 86 Nw U L R 859-904, 863
31. H Ho, A Philosophy of Evidence (OUP, Oxford 2008) 13.
32. Sprint/United Management v Mendelsohn 128 S Ct 1140, 1147 (2008). Relevance is about the relationship between evidence and the proposition to be proved by it. That proposition must be material. Materiality is determined by substantive law. Therefore, determination of relevance requires legal knowledge.
33. E Thomas The Judicial Process (CUP, Cambridge 2005) 327-8.
34. See also A Barak, Judicial Discretion (Yale, New Haven 1987) 17.
35. W Cook, '"Facts" and "Statements of Facts"' (1936) 4 U Chicago L R 233-46, 238.
36. P Tillers, 'Mapping Inferential Domains' (1986) 66 Bost ULR 883-936, 900.
37. Tillers (n 18) 168
38. Shapiro (n 1) 209.
39. J Stephen, General View of the Criminal Law (2nd edn Macmillan, London 1890) 191.
40. The degree of certainty required for a judge to find a fact is considered in Pattenden (n 11).
41. For example, the judge's finding that the defendant presented the jury with a false impression of his character is capable of dispute: See eg R v Robinson [2001] EWCA Crim 214.
42. J Weinstein, 'Some Difficulties in Devising Rules for Determining Truth in Judicial Trials' (1966) 66 Col L R 223-46, 231
43. Dennis (n 13) 117
44. Cf. Birmingham City Council v Ram [2007] EWCA Crim 3084, [29].
45. Cf. R v S (R.D.) [1997] 3 SCR 484, [29].
46. J Frank, 'Civil Law Influences on the Common Law - Some Reflections' (1956) 104 U Pa L R 887-926, 889-900 (emphasis added).
47. K Kilback and M Tochor, 'Searching for Truth but Missing the Point' (2002) 40 Alberta L Rev 333-46, 338.
48. R Pattenden, 'The Standards of Review for Mistake of Fact in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division', [2009] Crim LR forthcoming.
49. Cf. In re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [32].
50. 'Preliminary fact' does not signify that the fact is decided at a pre-trial hearing or before the jury is sworn in, although this sometimes happens. The phrase 'preliminary fact' is North American and refers to any fact decided at any time before the deliberation stage of a trial.
51. Cf. G Samuel, Epistemology and Method in Law (Dartmouth Publishing, Burlington 2003).
52. Section 15(4).
53. R v Gibson (1887) 18 QBD 537, 542
54. R v Platten [2006] EWCA Crim 140, [23]. Cf. PACE s76(3), Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (henceforth YJCEA) 1999, s54. In practice, as Criminal Justice Act (henceforth CJA) 2003, s114(1)(c) recognizes, a judge would not query that a fact mentioned by a rule is satisfied if the parties agree that it is.
55. J Jackson, 'Questions of Fact and Questions of Law' in W Twining (ed) Facts in Law (Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1983) 88-9.
56. T Endicott, 'Questions of Law' (1998) 114 LQR 292-321, 299.
57. V Walker, 'Epistemic and Non-epistemic Aspects of the Factfinding Process in Law' (2005) 5 J Phil Sci Law available http://www6.miami.edu/ ethics/jpsl/archives/all/walkerpaper.html. The distinction between classification and statutory interpretation is one of degree. 'The process of interpretation ... though it is commonly simple and often unobserved, is always present, being inherently indispensible.'
58. A Barak, Purposive Interpretation in Law (Princeton University Press, Princeton 2005) 12
59. citing J Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence (Chadbourn Rev, 1981) s2459.
60. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 (HL).
61. There are two further preconditions that must always be satisfied. One is factual: Identification of the unavailable witness (s116(1)(b)). The other, in s116(1)(a), stipulates that 'oral evidence given in the proceedings by the person who made the statement would be admissible as evidence of that matter'. To decide this precondition, the judge has to consider other legal rules which may have preliminary facts, for example, the rule of witness competence found in YJCEA 1999 s53.
62. As in R v Bailey [2008] EWCA Crim 817, [22], [38].
63. Section 116(2)(b).
64. Cf. See R (On the Application of Meredith) v Harwich Justices [2006] EWHC 3336 (Admin).
65. J Jackson Finding Fact and Guilt in Criminal Trials LLM thesis submitted to the University of Wales, Cardiff in 1980, 259.
66. R v Renda [2006] 1 WLR 2948, [3] (CA) per Sir Igor Judge with reference to decisions about evidence of 'bad character'.
67. (1843) 11 M & W 482, 152 ER 895
68. Cf. Doe dem Molesworth v Sleeman (1846) 9 QB 298, 115 ER 1287.
69. This happened in Jones v Fort (1828) Moo & M 196, 173 ER 1129
70. and apparently also in R v Fenn The Times 12 September 1828, where counsel failed to persuade the judge to determine the voluntariness of the confession before evidence of its content was received. The judge said that there was no precedent for this.
71. (1789) 1 Leach 500, 504, 168 ER 352, 354.
72. It is unclear whether Baron Eyre decided that victim apprehended that she would soon die and later directed the jury to reconsider his decision (cf. R v Mushtaq [2005] 1 WLR 1513 (HL)), or whether he made a prima facie finding about this and left the definitive decision to the jury.
73. (1790) 1 Leach 500, 168 ER 354n.
74. See also E East, Pleas of the Crown vol 1 (Butterworth, London 1803) 357-8.
75. This practice was then constantly followed: R v Welbourn (1792) East ibid 358-60
76. and R v Hucks (1816) 1 Stark 521, 171 ER 549.
77. W Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors (Butterworth, London 1828) 648-9
78. H Joy, On the Admissibility of Confessions and Challenge of Jurors (Andrew Milliken, Dublin 1842) 57
79. D Bentley, Select Cases from the Twelve Judges' Notebooks (J. Rees, London 1997) 87.
80. R v Picton (1804) 30 How St Tr 225, 535 (emphasis added).
81. E Morgan, 'Functions of the Judge and Jury in the Determination of Preliminary Questions of Fact' (1929) 43 HLR 165-91, 168.
82. Cf. LRCHK, Report on the Procedure Governing the Admission of Confession Statements in Criminal Proceedings (Hong Kong, 2000) s4.52.
83. W Twining, Rethinking Evidence (2nd edn CUP, Cambridge 2006) 308-9
84. J Leubsdorf, 'Presuppositions of Evidence Law' (2006) 91 Iowa LR 1209-58, 1213
85. D Simon, 'A Third View of the Black Box' (2004) 71 U Chic L R 511-86, 559.
86. On the inability of jurors to understand instructions, see also J Koehler, 'Train Our Jurors' in G Engel (ed), Heuristics and the Law (MIT Press, Cambridge 2006) 305.
87. It is not clear in which era the prejudice described in this paragraph became a matter of concern to the judiciary. It is unlikely to have troubled 18th century judges, see generally, J Beattie, Crime and the Courts in England 1660-1800 (Princeton UP, Princeton 1986) 342-3.
88. R v Mushtaq [2002] EWCA Crim 1943, [31]
89. LRCHK (n 55) ss4.36, 4.49.
90. DPP v Conroy [1986] 1 IR 460, 672 per Finlay CJ
91. R v Murphy (1959) 43 Cr App R 174, 176
92. R v Sawoniuk [2000] 2 Cr App Rep 220, 245
93. R v Mushtaq [2005] 1 WLR 1513, [16] (HL).
94. Cf. R v Taylor [1978] Crim LR 92.
95. A Memon and others, Psychology and Law (2nd edn Wiley, Chichester 2003) 163
96. A Wistrich and others, 'Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding' (2005) 153 U Penn L R 1251-346, 1254-5, 1261, 1270
97. L Isbell and others, 'Guilty or Innocent? Women's Reliance on Inadmissible Evidence in a Simulated Rape Case' (2007) 37 J App Soc Psychol 717-39, 718-21.
98. Wills v Bernard (1832) 8 Bing 376, 385; 131 ER 439.
99. For example, R v Mohamed [2008] EWCA Crim 880, [139]-[142].
100. R v Paris (1993) 97 Cr App R 99, 107.
101. People v Conroy [1986] IR 460, 472.
102. Cf. R v McCuin [1982] 1 NZLR 13, 21.
103. The judge must send the jury out whenever there is a risk of prejudice: R Pattenden, Judicial Discretion and Criminal Litigation (2nd edn OUP, Oxford 1990) 167.
104. Exclusion is compulsory when the admissibility of a confession is investigated and jurors must be kept ignorant of the judge's ruling if it is excluded unless the defence objects: Adams v R [2002] UKPC 14, [14]
105. R v Mushtaq [2005] 1 WLR 1513, [16], [38](HL). Similarly, the competence and ability of a witness to give sworn evidence must be investigated and decided in the jury's absence: YJCEA, ss54(5), 55(5). The law was not always thus.
106. Early in the life of the law of evidence, it was normal for the judge to hear argument about the admissibility of evidence in front of the jury, see D Bentley, English Criminal Justice in the Nineteenth Century (Hambledon, London 1998) 209.
107. Until recently, the competence of witnesses was also decided in the jury's presence: Pattenden (n 65) ibid.
108. R v H [1995] 2 AC 596, 620 (HL).
109. For example, the competence of a child witness may require reconsideration: R v Powell [2006] EWCA Crim 3, [22], [33].
110. R v Mushtaq [2002] EWCA Crim 1943, [32], [2005] 1 WLR 1513, [16], [38] (HL).
111. Cf. R v Maynard [2006] EWCA Crim 1509, [11].
112. J Maguire Evidence: Common Sense and Common Law (Foundation Press, Chicago 1947) 216.
113. Nowadays this happens at pre-trial and preparatory hearings. As regards the former, see the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, s40 and the latter, the CJA 1987 s7 and the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, s29.
114. R v Shyler [2003] 1 AC 247, [16] (HL) per Lord Bingham. Where the judge's ruling does not terminate the trial and is based on incomplete evidence, the judge may find it necessary to reconsider admissibility at a later stage in the trial.
115. R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 434, [58] per Pill LJ.
116. R v Mushtaq [2005] 1 WLR 1513, [16] (HL) per Lord Hutton.
117. Contamination is not the sole precondition. In addition, the judge must be satisfied that a conviction would be unsafe, which it will be argued is a weak discretion.
118. [2006] EWCA Crim 1079, [20].
119. See also, the preconditions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s34.
120. R v Gray [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. 30, [57].
121. Criminal Justice Act and Public Order Act (henceforth CJPOA) 1994, s32(1).
122. Davies v DPP [1954] AC 378 (HL).
123. R v Friend [1997] 2 All ER 1010, 1020
124. R v Friend [2004] EWCA Crim 2661. There is scope for debate about whether the judge's finding is one of fact or an exercise of weak discretion as defined later in this article.
125. R v Christie [1914] AC 545, 560, 564-5 (HL).
126. This common law discretion was confirmed in R v Sang [1980] AC 402, 437 (HL).
127. R v Clive B [2004] EWCA Crim 1254, [45].
128. See also, C Tapper (ed) Cross & Tapper on Evidence (11th edn OUP, Oxford 2007) 73, Ho (n 18) 189-90.
129. Emphasis added.
130. [1982] AC 204, 222 (HL) (emphasis added).
131. Cf. R v Robson [1972] 1 WLR 651, 654 (Central CC)
132. MacPherson v R (1981) 37 ALR 81, 86,
133. Thongjai v R [1998] AC 54 (PC).
134. R v Flemming (1988) 86 Cr App R 32, 36, 38.
135. R v Christie [1914] AC 545 (HL)
136. R v Collins [2004] 1 WLR 1705, [34] (CA).
137. R v Roberts [1953] 2 All ER 340, 344-5 (Assizes Cardiff)
138. R v Mulligan [1955] OR 240, a decision approved in R v Gauthier [1977] 1 SCR 441.
139. See also, R v Taylor [1978] Crim LR 92 where the Court of Appeal held that evidence of an accusation of guilt should have been excluded as more prejudicial than probative as there was no evidence of its adoption by the defendant.
140. Ajodha v State [1982] AC 204, 221 (PC).
141. CJA 2003, s103 (1).
142. Emphasis added.
143. R v Mauricia [2002] 2 Cr App R 27, [20]
144. R v Buono [2005] EWCA Crim 1313, [23]
145. R v Smith [2006] 1 WLR 1524, [81] (CA)
146. R v Lowe [2007] EWCA Crim 3047, [21]
147. R v Trewin [2008] EWCA Crim 484, [8], [25]
148. R v Ngyuen [2008] EWCA Crim 585, [29].
149. Cf. R v Maynard [2006] EWCA Crim 1509, [10].
150. See also, R v H [1995] 2 AC 595, 620
151. HML v R [2008] HCA 16, [117], [133]. The defendant may call evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of bad character.
152. Cf. R v H [1995] 2 AC 596,604, 614 (HL).
153. R v Mustapha [2007] EWCA Crim 1702, [23].
154. Cf. R v Rafiq [2005] EWCA Crim 1453, [23]-[24].
155. Evidence of other counts on the indictment may help to establish whether the defendant's conduct was criminal (as in R v Chopra [2007] 1 Cr App R 16, [15]) or that all the crimes were committed by one person, and that person is the defendant,
156. see R. Pattenden, 'Similar Fact Evidence and Proof of Identity' (1996) 112 LQR 446-71 and R v Freeman [2008] EWCA Crim 1863.
157. CJA 2003 s109(2) (emphasis added). This implies the judge can hold a voir dire.
158. Emphasis added.
159. According to R v Chalkley [1998] 2 Cr App R 79, 105 'may' in s78 means 'must'.
160. R v Musone [2007] 1 WLR 2467, [60] (CA) per Moses LJ. The Court of Appeal was dealing in this case with another issue viz. breach of a procedural rule.
161. Cf. R v McKenzie [2008] EWCA Crim 758, [28] per Toulson LJ.
162. Cf. R v Mustapha [2007] EWCA Crim. 1702, [33].
163. R Spencer, Evidence of Bad Character (Hart, Oxford 2006) 96 believes it is safe to assume that s78 applies.
164. Emphasis added.
165. [2006] EWCA Crim 617, [18].
166. See also, R v Lewendon [2006] 1 WLR 1278, [11]-[12] (CA).
167. Greenough v Eccles (1859) 5 CB (NS) 786, 141 ER 315. Under CJA 2003, s119 the previous inconsistent statement becomes evidence of the truth of its contents.
168. The hostile witness Practice Direction, Direction 28, rule 2 in the Judicial Studies Board Crown Court Bench Book available http://www.jsboard.co.uk/ implies that the jury is to decide whether a hostile witness made the prior inconsistent statement.
169. R v Zardad [2007] EWCA Crim 279, [23]-[24]. See now Practice Direction 29, first direction.
170. R v Walker [2001] 2 NZLR 289, [28]-[29].
171. [2005] EWCA Crim 1937 [11], [15].
172. Schwarz v R [1988] [1988] 2 SCR. 443, [59], [61]
173. J Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence (3rd edn Little Brown, Boston 1940) s2148
174. ALRC, Evidence, Report 26 (Interim) (1985) s985
175. NZLRC Evidence Law: Documentary Evidence and Judicial Notice PP 22 (Wellington, 1994) above n ss10, 37.
176. Cf. R v Mawji [2003] EWCA Crim 3067, [17].
177. CJA 2003, s116(1)(b) (emphasis added).
178. Cf. R v Lowe [2007] EWCA Crim 3047, [22].
179. JC Smith, 'Proving conspiracy' [1996] Crim LR 386-93, 388.
180. R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
181. R v Burge [1996] 1 Cr App R 163, 174
182. R v Komljenovic [2006] VSCA 136.
183. R v Phillips [2004] EWCA Crim 2288, [8]
184. R v Mawji [2003] EWCA Crim 3067, [13], [17], [23],[25].
185. D Galligan, Discretionary Powers (OUP, Oxford 1986), 6, 8, 22.
186. CJA 2003, s133(b).
187. Pattenden (n 65) 44.
188. Ibid 98.
189. R v Ling [1987] Crim LR 495
190. R v Johnson [2008] EWCA Crim 79.
191. Pattenden (n 65) 160.
192. Ibid 140.
193. R v Ely [2005] EWCA Crim 32 48, [41].
194. Thomas (n 20) 266.
195. See also, Galligan (n 115) 44-5.
196. The judge is typically expected to decide by weighing up all reasonably relevant considerations.
197. Barak (n 20) 14.
198. Cf. Em v R [2007] HCA 46, [178].
199. PACE, s78(l), as to which see R v Aslam [2006] EWCA Crim 411, [9], CJA 2003, s101(3).
200. CJA 2003, s116(2)(c), (d).
201. CJA 2003, ss117(5)(b) (business documents); 120(7)(d) (recent complaint). The discretion involved in applying this standard was recognized in R v Cummings (1948] 1 All ER 551, 552 (CCA) and (implicitly) in R v Kamuhuza CACD unreported 28/2/2008, [25].
202. R v Cavanagh [1972] 1 WLR 676, 679 (CA).
203. R v Boyes (1861) 1 B & S 311, 330, 121 ER 730 (self-incrimination)
204. CJPOA 1994 s25(1), Criminal Appeal Act 1995 s13(2), Att-Gen's Ref. (Nor 1 of 1990) [1992] QB 630, 643 (abuse of process).
205. Winsor v R (1866) 1 LR (QB) 289, 394 (jury discharge)
206. R v Turner [1975] 1 QB 835, 841-2 (expert evidence)
207. CJPOA 1994, s35(1)(b).
208. CJA 2003 s112(1). The evaluative character of the standard explains why no consistency is to be found in the case law, as to which see J Goudkamp, 'Bad character evidence and reprehensible behaviour' (2008) 12 E & P 116-40.
209. R v Bowden [2001] EWCA Crim 2795, [17].
210. YJCEA 1999 s41(2)(b), CJA 2003, s107(b).
211. CJA 2003, s101(1) (d) as to which see R v Reend [2007] EWCA Crim 3083, [37].
212. R v Sang [1980] AC 402, 437 (HL).
213. R v Shamouil (2006) 66 NSWLR 228, [71] per Spigelman CJ
214. Cf. R v H [1995] 2 AC 596, 621
215. HML v R [2008] HCA 16, [14].
216. Cf. CJA 1991 s54 (3)(c).
217. [2006] EWCA Crim, 2716, [27]-[28].
218. Cf. R v Chalkley [1988] QB 848, 874: 'the task of determining (in)admissibility under section 78 does not strictly involve an exercise of discretion' per Auld LJ.
219. R v Straffen [1952] 2 QB 911, 917
220. R v Anjum [2004] EWCA Crim 977, [28]
221. R v Gardner [2004] EWCA, Crim 1639, [26]
222. R v Sorhaindo [2006] EWCA Crim 1429, [13].
223. See also, CJA 2003, ss46(4), 114 (1)(d), 121(1)(c), 137(3)(b)(ii).
224. See p. 5 above.
225. Jackson (n 45) 268.
226. For the definition of virtual fact, see p. above.
227. CJA 2003, s117 (2)(b) (emphasis added).
228. R v Castillo [1996] 1 Cr App R 428, 443
229. Rv Radial [1999] 1 Cr App R 187, 198
230. R v Farooq [2003] EWCA Crim, 3639, [7], [231
231. R v Gyima [2007) EWCA (Crim) 429, [24]-[25].
232. Cf. Wong v R [2008] NZSC 28.
233. It is unclear whether the issue was regarded as one of fact or discretion in R v Kamuhuza CACD unreported 28, February 2008, [22], where the judge was held to have come to a conclusion that could not possibly have been supported on the evidence. The treatment of 'reasonably practicable' as a question of fact is not a complete aberration. G Marshall, 'Provisional Concepts and Definitions of Fact' (1999) 18 Law and Philosophy 447-460, 448 notes that 'for some legal purposes questions of fact have been alleged to exist where there answers to a question are thought to be indefinite in the sense of lying along some sort of spectrum.
234. See P. 3-4 above.
235. J Frank, Courts on Trial (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1951) 57.
236. R v Barrett [2008] EWCA Crim 461, [21]-[22].
237. For example, R v Walker [1998] Crim, LR 211, LexisNexis transcript.
238. Therein lies the flaw in the reasoning of the NZ Supreme Court in Rajamani v R [2008] 1 NZLR 723 and Wong v R [2008] NZSC 28 where 'exceptional circumstances' was classified as a finding of fact and not an exercise of discretion. This classification, however, allowed the court to circumvent a prohibition on appeals 'against the exercise of discretion.
239. Barak (n 20) 24-7: 'Sometimes the requirement of reasonableness will indicate a single solution. In these cases, no discretion will exist, in the final analysis.'
240. For example, CJA 2003, s101(4) regarding the discretion in s101(3), see also R v Smith [2006] 1 WLR 1524, [75] (CA). On the attractions of structured discretion, see D Ormrod and D Birch, 'The Evolution of the Discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' [2004] Crim L R 767-883 786.
241. For example, R.v Smurthwaite [1994] 1 All ER 898, 903 (CA).
242. CJA 2003, s116(2)(e).
243. For example, R v Taheny [2006] EWCA Crim 529, [8], [11]
244. R v Davis [2006) EWCA Crim 2643, [12], [14]
245. R v Doherty [2006] EWCA Crim 2716, [33]
246. R v Kelly [2007] EWCA Crim 1715, [33]-[38].
247. Cf. R v Doherty [2006] EWCA Crim 2716, [33].
248. Cf. R v Joyce [2005] EWCA Crim 1785, [26].
249. Cf. Winsor v R (1866) 1 LR (QB) 289, 394.
250. Similar amalgamation occurs in the verdicts of judges sitting without a jury in civil cases, as to which see A Goodhart, 'Appeals on Questions of Fact' (1955) 71 LQR 402-14, 405.
251. R v O'Halloran [1979] NI 45, 48
252. R v Johnston [2008) EWCA Crim 79, [16].
253. J Maguire and C Epstein, 'Rules of Evidence in Preliminary Controversies as to Admissibility' (1926) 36 Yale LJ 1101-1125. They were referring to preliminary facts, but their comment is also apt for facts bearing on the exercise of discretion.
254. R v Cumming [1948] 1 551, 552 (CCA)(emphqsis added).
255. R v Flemming (1988) 86 Cr App R 32, 37
256. R v G [2004] EWCA Crim 1240, [31].
257. The Court of Appeal has criticized trial judges for holding a voir dire to determine the exclusion of pre-trial identification evidence under PACE, s78, see P Mirfield, Silence, Confessions and Improperly Obtained Evidence (OUP, Oxford 1997) 38-9.
258. R v Davis [1990] Crim LR 860.
259. Cf. R v Chadwick (1934) 24 Cr App R 138.
260. Fremoult v Dedire (1718) 1 P Wms 429, 431, 24 ER 458, 459.
261. S Sass, 'Foreign Law in Civil Litigation: A Comparative Survey' (1968) 16 Am J Com L 332-71, 337-8.
262. (1774) 1 Cowp 161, 174, 24 ER 1021, 1028.
263. Sass (n 172) 343.
264. Nelson v Bridport (1845) 8 Beav 527, 534, 50 ER 207, 210.
265. Geeroms (n 10) 363.
266. Boehtlinck v Schneider (1799) 3 Esp 58, 59-60, 170 ER 537, 538.
267. Millar v Heinrick (1815) 4 Camp 155, 171 ER 50.
268. (1844) 8 QB 208.
269. Nelson v Bridport (1845) 8 Beav 527, 535-6, 50 ER 207, 210-11.
270. R v Ofori [1994] 99 Cr App R 223, 227.
271. J Pitt Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence vol 1 (3rd edn W. Maxwell, London 1858) s40.
272. (1774) 1 Cowp 161, 174, 98 ER 1021, 1028.
273. A Miller, 'Federal Rule 44.1 and the 'Fact' Approach to Determining Foreign Law: Death Knell for a Die-Hard Doctrine' (1966) 65 Mich L R 613-750, 675.
274. (1845) 1 Car & K 97, 98, 174 ER 729, 730.
275. (1804) 30 How St Tr 225, 540. For a civil case in which the jury was asked to decide see Trimbey v Vignier (1834) 6 Car & P 25, 28, 172 ER 1131, 1132.
276. (1804) 30 How St Tr 225, 540.
277. Ibid 864.
278. Ibid 870.
279. Bristow v Sequeville (1850) 5 Ex R 275, 155 ER 118, In the Goods of Bonelli (1875) LR 1 PD 69.
280. Sussex Peerage Case (1845) 11 Cl & Fin 85, 117, 8 ER 1034, 1047.
281. R v Newman (1852) 3 Car & K 252, 262-3, 175 ER 541, 547.
282. See also, R v Wakefield (1827) 2 Lewin 279, 281, 287, 168 ER 1154, 1155, 1156.
283. For example, R v Povey (1852) Dears 33, 169 ER 625
284. R v Savage (1876) 13 Cox CC 178
285. R v Maguib [1917] 1 KB 359.
286. T Hartley, 'Pleading and Proof of Foreign Law: The Major European Systems Compared' (1996) 45 ICLQ 271-92, 286.
287. Cf. R v Moscovitch (1928) 20 Cr App R 121
288. R v Okolie CA.C.D unreported 15 May 2000.
289. (1804) 30 How St T. 225, 539.
290. R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039, 1041 (CA)
291. R v H [1995] 2 AC 596, 613-14, 620, 627 (HL).
292. [1923] 2 KB 786.
293. R v Mokbel (Ruling No. 4) [2006] VSC 137, [19] per Gillard J.
294. J Hirschfeld (n 10) 242.
295. Hooper v Moore (1857) 5 Jones (N.C.) 130 per Pearson J.
296. Judicial notice of notorious law is also forbidden: Geeroms (n 10) 118-9.
297. R v Redmond [2006] EWCA Crim 1744, [11]-[12], [17].
298. R v Hardy [2003] EWCA Crim 3092, [22], [32], [38].
299. [1997] UKPC 35, [22]-[23].
300. G Yates, 'Foreign Law Before Domestic Tribunals' (1977) 18 Va J Int'l L 725-51, 728.
301. Nelson v Bridport (1845) 8 Beav 527, 537, 50 ER 207, 211.
302. Morgan Grenfell & Co v SACE [2001] EWCA Civ 1932, [49]-[50].
303. Sharif v Azad [1967] 1 QB 605, 616.
304. MCC Proceeds v Bishopsgate [1999] CLC 417, 424.
305. R v Mokbel (Ruling No. 4) [2006] VSC 137, [41]
306. Iran v The Barakat Galleries Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1374, [47].
307. Bumper Development v Commissioner of Police [1991] WLR 1362, 1371 (CA).
308. Hirschfeld (n 10) 245.
309. This gap is addressed by this writer in 'Standards of Review of Mistake of Fact in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division' [2009] Crim LR forthcoming.
310. This writer has undertaken a critique of the burden and standard of proof in relation to judicial factfinding in a forthcoming article 'The Proof Rules of Judicial Fact-Finding in Criminal Trials' (2009) 125 LQR 000-000.
311. R Pattenden, 'Authenticating "Things" English Law: Principles for Adducing "Things" in Common Law Jury Trials' (2008) 12 E & P 273-302.
312. Morgan (n 55) 170.
313. J Maguire and C Epstein, 'Rules of Evidence in Preliminary Controversies as to Admissibility' (1926) 36 Yale L J 1101-25; 'Preliminary Questions of Fact in Determining the Admissibility of Evidence' (1926) 40 HLR 392-430.
314. R Barnhart, 'The Determination of Facts Preliminary to Admission of Evidence in the Arkansas Courts' (1947) 2 Ark L R 1-25
315. C McCormick, 'The Procedure of Admitting and Excluding Evidence' (1952) 31 Tex L Rev 128-64.
316. For more recent studies, see C Laughlin, 'Preliminary Questions of Fact: A New Theory' (1974) 31 Wash & Lee L Rev 285-319
317. S Salzburg, 'Standards of Proof and Preliminary Questions of Fact' (1974) 27 Stan L R 271-305
318. N Garland and J Schmitz, 'Of Judges and Juries: A Proposed Revision of Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 104' (1989) 23 U C Davis L R 77-116.
319. Particularly, FRE r. 104.
320. For example, California Evidence Code ss400-3 as to which see J Kaplan, 'Of Marbrus and Zorgs - An Essay in Honor of David Louisell' (1978) 66 Cal L Rev 987-1010
321. M Mendez, 'California Evidence Code - Federal Rules of Evidence, III The Role of Judge and Jury: Conforming the Evidence Code to the Federal Rules' (2003) 37 U San Fran L R 1003-30
322. N Garland, 'An Essay on: Of judges and juries revisited in the context of certain preliminary fact questions determining the admissibility of evidence under federal and California rules of evidence' (2008) 36 Sw U L R 853-78.