Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

Kuruma, Son of Kaniu v R

[1955] AC 197, [1955] 1 All ER 236, [1955] 2 WLR 223, 119 JP 157, 99 Sol Jo 73 Court: PC Judgment Date: circa 1955

Catchwords & Digest

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE - EVIDENCE - GENERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE DETERMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION - ADMISSIBILITY -- COURT NOT CONCERNED WITH METHOD OF OBTAINING EVIDENCE In considering whether evidence is admissible, the test is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue, and, if it is relevant, the court is not concerned with the method by which it was obtained or with the question whether that method was tortious but excusable; this principle, however, does not qualify the rule that a confession can only be received in evidence if it is voluntary. There is no difference in principle for this purpose between a criminal case and a civil case. Per curiam: it may well be that where an indictment alleges that an offence was committed at a particular place and no issue is raised thereon at the trial the court may take judicial notice that the place is where the indictment says that it is or may apply the maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta. EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - IN GENERAL - RULES IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES THE SAME -- METHOD OF OBTAINING EVIDENCE NOT CONSIDERED In considering whether evidence is admissible, the test is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue, and if it is relevant, the court is not concerned with the method by which it was obtained or with the question whether that method was tortious but excusable; this principle, however, does not qualify the rule that a confession can only be received in evidence if it is voluntary. There is no difference in principle for this purpose between a criminal case and a civil case. Per curiam: it may well be that where an indictment alleges that an offence was committed at a particular place and no issue is raised thereon at the trial the court may take judicial notice that the place is where the indictment says that it is or may apply the maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta. Cases referring to this case Annotations: All Cases Court: ALL COURTS Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First) Treatment Case Name Citations Considered [2009] EWCA Crim R v K 1640, [2010] QB 343, [2010] 2 All ER 509, [2010] 2 WLR 905, [2010] 1 Cr App Rep 44, [2009] STC 2553,

Court CA

Date 28/07/20 09

Signal

Applied Applied

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Olden R v Makahununiu

Considered

Memory Corpn plc v Sidhu

Explained

Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi

Applied

R v Fox

dictum Lord Goddard CJ Explained

R v Sang

Applied

Jeffrey v Black

Considered

R v Keeton

Considered

Callis v Gunn

[2009] 3 FCR 341, [2010] FLR 807, [2009] Fam Law 1136, (2009) Times, 19 August, [2009] All ER (D) 309 (Jul) [2009] EWHC 610 (QB), [2009] All ER (D) 254 (Mar) [2005] TOCA 21, [2006] 3 LRC 105 [2000] 1 WLR 1443, [2000] FSR 921, (2000) Times, 15 February, [2000] All ER (D) 46 [1999] 1 All ER 703, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 1, [1999] 1 WLR 1964, [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 478 [1986] AC 281, [1985] 3 All ER 392, [1985] 1 WLR 1126, [1985] RTR 337, 82 Cr App Rep 105, 150 JP 97, [1986] Crim LR 59, 129 Sol Jo 757, [1985] NLJ Rep 1058 [1980] AC 402, [1979] 2 All ER 1222, [1979] 3 WLR 263, 69 Cr App Rep 282, 143 JP 606, 123 Sol Jo 552 [1978] QB 490, [1978] 1 All ER 555, [1977] 3 WLR 895, 66 Cr App Rep 81, 142 JP 122, [1977] Crim LR 555, 121 Sol Jo 662 (1970) 54 Cr App Rep 267 [1964] 1 QB 495, [1963] 3 All ER 677, [1963] 3 WLR 931, 48 Cr App Rep 36, 128 JP 41, 107 Sol Jo 831

QBD Tonga SC

25/03/20 09 18/08/20 05

CA

21/01/20 00

QBD

03/12/19 98

HL

circa 1985

HL

circa 1979

DC

circa 1977

CA

circa 1970

DC

circa 1963

Cases considered by this case Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First) Treatment Case Name Citations (1861) 25 JP 468, 3 E & E 658, 30 LJQB 205, 8 Cox CC 498, 7 Jur NS Considered R v Leatham 674, 9 WR 334, 3 LT 777, [1861-73] All ER Rep Ext 1646

Court

Date

Signal

preSCJA 1873

circa 1861

S-ar putea să vă placă și