header-logo header-logo

24 July 2008
Issue: 7331 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Criminal Litigation

R v Cadman [2008] EWCA Crim 1418, [2008] All ER (D) 43 (Jul)

The defendant was charged with fraud involving cheques. At the trial, the jury were shown a number of cheques but there was no expert handwriting evidence that compared the defendant’s handwriting to the handwritten details on the cheques. The defendant denied any part in the fraud. After the jury had retired, they requested a sample of cheques which the defendant had allegedly written, the foreman of the jury indicating that they wanted to compare the handwriting on the cheques with samples of the defendant’s handwriting in other documents.

HELD For the jury to use the extraneous material provided after their retirement (i.e. the sample of further cheques) in order to compare handwriting so as to decide whether the appellant had written out the cheques in question necessarily meant using that extraneous material as evidence in an exercise that would enable the jury to reach their own conclusion in relation to the appellant’s evidence to the contrary. It was wholly impermissible for the jury to make use of the extraneous material for such an evidential exercise.

Issue: 7331 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll