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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll