Description
Examining the admissibility of evidence of the demeanour of a complainant
The Appellants were both convicted of kidnapping and Mohammed was also convicted of blackmail. Both Appellants sought to appeal against their convictions. The issue on appeal related to the admissibility of evidence in relation to the Complainant's reaction to the kidnapping.
The sole issue that arose on the appeal was the status of the evidence of the Complainant's reaction after the events in question. In the immediate aftermath of his escape, evidence was adduced by the Defence that in his Achieving Best Evidence interview (which had taken place shortly thereafter) the Complainant had a calm demeanour and appeared to be unaffected. That was consistent with the account which the Appellants put forward that this was a staged event. The Crown relied inter alia upon telephone calls, which the jury heard, where they said that there was evidence of distress and anguish consistent entirely with a genuine kidnapping.
In dismissing the appeal against conviction of both Appellants the Court of Appeal observed that in general such evidence, even though it may technically be relevant, is unlikely to be of any material assistance to a jury. Furthermore, there are good reasons why, in the overwhelming majority of cases, such evidence should not be adduced, e.g. it would lead to a number of collateral witnesses being called to explain the reaction of the Complainant and that would not only give rise to the lengthening of trials by the calling of such evidence, but it would give rise to the difficulties of investigating the veracity of the evidence or otherwise. In the overwhelming majority of cases evidence of the demeanour of the Complainant, although technically admissible or relevant, is likely to be of such tenuous relevance that it would not be right to admit it.
0141 553 4890
