Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
People (AG) v Taylor (1974) - Coggle Diagram
People (AG) v Taylor (1974)
The procedure to be adopted where a witness, who has been classified as hostile in accordance with s.3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865, is cross-examined on a previous inconsistent statement was laid down by the Criminal Court of Appeal in this case
1. Declaration of Hostility
If the trial judge must declare the witness hostile if their testimony conflicts significantly with earlier statements
The declaration is based on s.3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865
Steps in Cross-Examination Procedure for a Hostile Witness
Proving the Previous Statement
Re-examination of the Hostile Witness
Denial of the Previous Statement
6.Admission or Denial of the Contradiction
Initial Questioning
Credibility Implications
1.Declaration of Hostility
2. Initial Questioning
Once the jury is recalled, the prosecution must ask the witness if they previously made a statement that differs materially from their current testimony
3. Denial of the Previous Testimony
If the witness denies making the earlier statement, the next step is to temporarily remove the witness from the stand
4. Proving the Previous Statement
The prosecution should introduce the person who recorded the earlier statement to testify, verifying its creation and authenticity
During this stage, the contents of the statement are not disclosed to avoid influencing the jury prematurely
5. Re-examination of the Hostile Witness
The witness is called to the stand
The previous statement is shown to the witness, and their attention is drawn to the specific contradictions or variations in questions
6. Admission or Denial of Contradictions
If the witness admits the inconsistencies
This is treated as an admission of contradictory statements, which may undermine their credibility
If the witness denies the inconsistencies
The previously proved statement can be introduced as evidence of the contradictory facts
7. Credibility Implications
The court decides whether the admission or the proof of the statement affects the witness's credibility and how it impacts the overall case
Importance of this Procedure
It safeguards the integrity of the trial by ensuring that only verified evidence influences the outcome
It prevents undue prejudice that might arise from prematurely exposing the jury to potentially unreliable evidence
Expanded Interpretation in Subsequent Cases
DPP v Hanley
This case allowed for broader cross-examination of hostile witnesses beyond what was outlined in Taylor
The court emphasised persuading the witness to stand by their original statement while exposing inconsistencies