R. v. Hayter, (2005) 330 N.R. 235 (HL)

• Case Date: February 03, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 330 N.R. 235 (HL)

R. v. Hayter (2005), 330 N.R. 235 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. FE.020

Regina v. Hayter (appellant)

([2005] UKHL 6)

Indexed As: R. v. Hayter

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

February 3, 2005.

Summary:

Allegedly, a wife, with the assistance of a middleman, hired someone to kill her hus­band. All three were charged with murder and were convicted following a jury trial. The middleman appealed, submitting that the trial judge's directions to the jury breached the rule that a confession by one accused (killer) may not be used by the Crown against a co-accused (middleman).

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the appeal. The following two questions were certified: "(1) In a joint trial of two or more defendants for a joint offence is a jury entitled to consider first the case in respect of defendant A which is solely based on his own out of court admissions and then to use their findings of A's guilt and the role A played as a fact to be used evidentially in respect of co-defendant B? and, if so, (2) Where proof of A's guilt is necessary for there to be a case to answer against B, is there a case to answer against B at the close of the prosecution case where the only evi­dence of A's guilt is his own out of court admissions?". Leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeal, but the House of Lords granted leave to appeal.

The House of Lords, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Carswell, dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5264

Evidence and witnesses - Admissions - Admissibility - Allegedly, a wife, with the assistance of a middleman (Hayter), hired a hitman to kill her husband - All three were jointly charged with, and convicted of, murder following a jury trial - The hitman's convic­tion was based solely on his admission of the killing to his girl­friend - Portions of the admission impli­cated Hayter - Hayter could not be con­victed unless both the hitman and wife were con­victed - The trial judge properly instructed the jury that the hitman's admis­sion was inadmissible as against Hayter - How­ever, Hayter submitted that the rule was offended where the admission was crucial to the hitman's con­vic­tion, and the jury's use of the hitman's guilt effective­ly resulted in them using the ad­mis­sion to con­vict Hayter - The House of Lords held that there was no direct or indirect in­fringement of the rule by permitting the jury to use the hitman's guilt as evidence against Hayter - The jury was properly instructed that the admission, including those portions implicating Hayter, could not be used as evidence of Hayter's guilt.

Criminal Law - Topic 5522

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of accomplices, co-defendants, informants, etc. - Out of court statements by co-defen­dant - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5264 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lake (1976), 64 Cr. App. R. 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Lobban (D.), [1995] 1 W.L.R. 877; 184 N.R. 241 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Randall, [2004] 1 W.L.R. 56 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Rhodes (1959), 44 Cr. App. R. 23 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 17, 64, 81].

R. v. Spinks, [1981] 1 All E.R. 587; 74 Cr. App. R. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 17, 43, 64, 80].

Hollington v. Hewthorn (F.) & Co., [1943] K.B. 587 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 21, 72].

HM Advocate v. Kemp (1891), 3 White 17, refd to. [para. 38].

McIntosh v. HM Advocate, 1986 SC 169, refd to. [para. 44].

Montes v. HM Advocate, 1990 SCCR 645, refd to. [para. 45].

Rutherford v. Richardson, [1923] A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 52].

Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1965] A.C. 1001 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Blastland, [1986] A.C. 41; 61 N.R. 307 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 54, 70].

Teper v. R., [1952] A.C. 480 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Birch, Diana, Case Comment on R. v. Hayter, [2003] Crim. L.R., pp. 887, 888 [paras. 22, 80].

Cross, Rupert, and Tapper, Colin, Evi­dence (8th Ed. 1996), p. 565 [para. 70].

Cross, Rupert, and Tapper, Colin, Evi­dence (10th Ed. 2004), p. 79 [para. 28].

Gordon, Gerald, Renton and Brown, Crim­inal Procedure Accord­ing to the Law of Scot­land - see Renton, Robert, Wemyss, and Brown, Henry Hilton, Criminal Pro­cedure Accord­ing to the Law of Scot­land.

Keane, Adrian, The Mod­ern Law of Evi­dence (5th Ed. 2000), pp. 385, 386 [para. 25].

Murphy on Evidence (8th Ed. 2003), para. 8.15.3 [para. 71].

Northern Ireland, Law Reform Advisory Com­­mittee, Hearsay Evi­dence in Civil Proceed­ings (1990), Dis­cussion Paper No. 1, para. 1.2 [para. 68].

Phipson on Evi­dence (15th Ed. 1999), para. 6-10 [para. 75].

Renton, Robert Wemyss, and Brown, Henry Hilton, Criminal Procedure Ac­cord­ing to the Law of Scotland (6th Ed. 1996), para. 24-132 [para. 44].

Stephen, James Fitzjames, Digest of the Law of Evidence (12th Ed. 1946), p. 36 [para. 7].

United Kingdom, Current Law Statutes Annotated (1984), vol. 4, p. 60-120 [para. 21].

United Kingdom, Law Com­mission, Re­port on Evi­dence in Criminal Proceed­ings: Hearsay and Related Topics, Law Com. No. 245 (1997), para. 8.96 [para. 55].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Chadbourn Rev. 1972), vol. 4, para. 1076, fn. 13 [para. 54].

Counsel:

[not disclosed]

Agents:

[not disclosed]

This appeal was heard before Lord Bing­ham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, of the House of Lords.

On February 3, 2005, the judgment of the House of Lords was delivered and the fol­lowing opinions were filed:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see para­graph 1;

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 2 to 31;

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, dissenting - see paragraphs 32 to 58;

Lord Carswell, dissenting - see para­graphs 59 to 77;

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood - see paragraphs 78 to 91.