R. v. Blastland, (1985) 61 N.R. 307 (HL)

• Case Date: July 25, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1985), 61 N.R. 307 (HL)

R. v. Blastland (1985), 61 N.R. 307 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Blastland

Indexed As: R. v. Blastland

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brightman and Lord Templeman

July 25, 1985.

Summary:

The accused was charged with murdering a boy. The accused denied committing the murder, but admitted illicit contact with the boy on the evening of the murder, which he said another man, Mark, might have witnessed. Mark was investigated as a suspect. He was not called as a witness. The trial judge refused to admit evidence of statements made by Mark showing knowledge of the murder before the boy's body was found. The accused was convicted and appealed on the ground that Mark's statements were admissible and raised an inference that he could be guilty of the murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and held that Mark's statements were inadmissible. The House of Lords held that the admissibility of a statement tendered in evidence as proof of the maker's knowledge or other state of mind must always depend on the degree of relevance of the state of mind sought to be proved to the issue on which the evidence is tendered. Here, the issue was whether the accused murdered the boy. Mark's knowledge of the murder was not in issue or relevant to the issue of the accused's guilt. What was relevant was not Mark's knowledge, but how he came by that knowledge, which was a matter of mere speculation.

Courts - Topic 12

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - General principles - Refusal to grant leave to appeal - Effect of - The House of Lords stated that the refusal by the House of Lords of leave to appeal is not the equivalent of an authoritative decision of the House affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal from which leave to appeal was sought, because leave may be refused for a variety of reasons - See paragraph 10.

Evidence - Topic 1500

Hearsay rule - General principles - Definition and general rule - The House of Lords reiterated the reason for the rule against hearsay - See paragraph 14.

Evidence - Topic 1669

Hearsay rule - Exceptions and exclusions - Statements of physical sensation and mental condition - Statements of opinion, belief or knowledge - The House of Lords held that the admissibility of a statement tendered in evidence as proof of the maker's knowledge or other state of mind must always depend on the degree of relevance of the state of mind sought to be proved to the issue on which the evidence is tendered - The House of Lords held that in a murder trial evidence of statements of a third party showing knowledge of a murder before it was discovered were inadmissible, because the statements showed only knowledge and not how the knowledge was come by, which was the relevant issue.

Evidence - Topic 1674

Hearsay rule - Exceptions and exclusions - Statements of physical sensation and mental condition - Confessions by third parties - The House of Lords reiterated that the confession of a person, who is not called as a witness, to the crime for which the accused is being tried is inadmissible - See paragraphs 9 to 10.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Turner (Bryan) (1975), 61 Cr. App. R. 67, appld. [para. 9].

In re Wilson, [1985] 2 W.L.R. 694, appld. [para. 10].

Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1965] A.C. 1001, appld. [para. 10].

Teper v. R., [1952] A.C. 480, appld. [para. 14].

Thomas v. Connell (1838), 4 M. & W. 267, consd. [para. 16].

Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, [1956] 1 W.L.R. 965, consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Willis, [1960] 1 W.L.R. 55, consd. [para. 18].

Lloyd v. Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Co. Ltd., [1914] A.C. 733, consd. [para. 19].

Mawaz Khan v. R., [1967] 1 A.C. 454, dist. [para. 20].

Ratten v. R., [1972] A.C. 378, dist. [para. 21].

R. v. Moghal (1977), 65 Cr. App. R. 56, dist. [para. 23].

R. v. Roberts (1984), 80 Cr. App. R. 89, appld. [para. 25].

Counsel:

I. Judge, Q.C., and P. Morrell, for the accused appellant;

D. Draycott, Q.C., and P. Eccles, for the Crown.

This case was heard on June 11 and 12, 1985, at London, England, before Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brightman and Lord Templeman of the House of Lords.

On July 25, 1985, the judgment of the House of Lords was given and the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton - see paragraph 1;

Lord Edmund-Davies - see paragraph 2;

Lord Bridge of Harwich - see paragraphs 3 to 28;

Lord Brightman - see paragraph 29;

Lord Templeman - see paragraph 30.