Law of evidence

Title: Law of evidence

Law of evidence ; R v James Haydon, Advice on Evidence  Timeline

• 20:30 – paul flatmate said haydon left – had balaclava – heavy object looked like gun
• 21:02 – martin called police saw figure
• 23:30 – Rebecca – man holding bag & heavy object/ baclava on 6’0/50’s/shaved
• 23:37 – William tarr – neibour heard bang gilmorton street
• 23:45 – brian noted reg some else saw of sus masked person getting into car percival street near gilmorton street
• 00:00?? Came home
• 00:13 – police found body

  I have been asked to advise the Crown Prosecution Service regarding evidential issues in the case of R v James Haydon which occurred on 20^th December 2021. I will be advising the CPS on the strengths of the case against Mr. Haydon. It will discuss which evidence may be admissible, the arguments which may be made by the defence, and the likely outcome of those arguments. James Haydon has been charged with the murder of Martin Priddeauz and was arrested on the 28^th January, by Inspector Mendel and Sergeant Esterhese.

• Discuss the admissibility of any hearsay evidence. (1000 words)
• Brian Sachs
  • Inadmissible as Mr. Sachs did not see the car himself, and they were unable to locate the passenger who did see the car
  • However, it was confirmed that the registration number Mr. Sachs wrote down was registered under James Haydon.
  • See Subramaniam v DPP [1956]

)(d) The maker cannot be found although such steps as it is reasonably practicable to take have been taken Crown to prove BRD (Shabir [2012] EWCA Crim 2564); Defence to prove on BofP. Reasonably practicable: See above (1) Challenge reasonable practicability

• (2) 78 PACE 1984(NB defence only)

• Paul Guillam
  • Scared to testify in court so have to rely on statement which maybe classed as hearsay
  • May be motivated to testify against haydon so that his sentence can be reduced
  • Has previous convictions for fraud and perjury- can he be trusted??
• Discuss the admissibility and weight likely to be attached to any identification evidence. (1000 words)
• Rebecca Bland
  • Inspector mendel only showed her Haydons picture so in her mind he must have been the culprit as the inspector was saying so,
  • however this may have caused her to be biased in the viper parade as this may have been affected by the inspectors visit.
  • Identification of a picture (Lucas v Williams & Sons [1892] 2 QB 113)
  • How did she see his head when the balaclava was pulled over it
• Carla Westerby
  • Heard his voice 10 years ago, not likely to be able to remember how some ones voice you heard in passing sounds
  • She may have also automatically suspected haydon because he was sent to prison because of the testimony from Martin and had shouted that he would, ‘get the grass who stitched him up’
  • Familiar voice (Flynn [2008] EWCA Crim 970, [2008] 2 Cr App R 20 (266))
• Martin Priddeaux
  • He didn’t specify any physical attributes which would describe the assailant, he only said that he thinks it was haydon and nobody was found when the police officer searched.
• Paul Guillam
  • Has previous convictions for fraud and perjury- can he be trusted??

3) Discuss the admissibility of the previous convictions of Haydon. (500 words)

• 1995 – Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life (4 years imprisonment)
  • Haydon has stated that he would not know how to obtain a gun, whereas he has been convicted if being in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
  • Need to check if this would be so, maybe its been too long time
• 1999 – Rape (6 years imprisonment)
• 2005 – Dwelling house burglary (4 years imprisonment)
• 2010 – Robbery (10 years imprisonment – the offence described above)

4) Discuss the admissibility of the comments made by Haydon to the police and the discovery of the gun. (750 words)

• Obtained unlawfully under the pace act as they manipulated and tried to threaten him by intimidation
• However, when he spoke about the canal, he was not directly answering the questions of the police officers and seemed like a slip of the tongue, this paired with the fact that the weapon was actually found in the canal seems admissible

5) Discuss the likely issues in relation to the DNA evidence. (500 words)

• Cross contamination
• Low quality dna
• Sainsbury bag from garden of crime scene
• Low quality DNA was found on the bag
• At least three different peoples DNA was contained in the sample
• The expert report concluded that the statistical probability of an innocent person coincidentally providing a DNA sample matching the crime sample has been calculated at one out of a million.
• There is also a geographical association between the offence and Haydon, as him and his car were spotted by multiple individuals in the area. this is only circumstantial as the passenger who saw the vehicle was unable to be located therefore it depends on whether this is accepted in court and when Bland
• Where the experts experienced
• The DNA experts were incapable of distinguishing between a primary deposit of his DNA on the carrier bag and secondary transfer.
• The expert explained that that the statistical evaluation does not assist in determining how the DNA from James Haydon was deposited on the carrier bag, including whether it was left directly or indirectly.
• The probability of the DNA being anyone other than Haydon was one in a million.

‘No comment’ interview (250 words)

• Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which ensures the right to a fair trial, acknowledges that we all have the right to silence, also known as a privilege against self-incrimination which means that individuals cannot be compelled to answer questions during any criminal proceedings at trial.
• However, Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows for adverse inferences to be made from a failure to mention when questioned something which they will later be relying on. Haydon’s defence states that he denies any involvement with the murder and his presence at the scene. He does not admit to his car being in the area and states that he would not know how to acquire a gun. An individual who was guiltless would declare such statements to prove his innocence.
• Thus, although Haydon was legally in his rights to provide ‘no comment’ during the interview, an adverse inference could be made as he failed to mention these details in the interview which he will be relying on during the trial. Therefore, it may seem that he didn’t answer the questions and waited to see what the evidence was against him to tailor his defence to the facts which the prosecution already retained. While being charged
• on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it, failed to mention any such fact,…
• being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be

7) Given an overall assessment of the strength of the case based upon your conclusions on the evidence. (500 words)

Case summary and questions

• Discuss the admissibility and weight likely to be attached to any identification evidence. (1000 words)
• Rebecca Bland
  • Inspector mendel only showed her Haydons picture so in her mind he must have been the culprit as the inspector was saying so,
  • however this may have caused her to be biased in the viper parade as this may have been affected by the inspectors visit.
  • Identification of a picture (Lucas v Williams & Sons [1892] 2 QB 113)
  • How did she see his head when the balaclava was pulled over it – need to check if valid????
• Carla Westerby
  • Heard his voice 10 years ago, not likely to be able to remember how some ones voice you heard in passing sounds
  • She may have also automatically suspected haydon because he was sent to prison because of the testimony from Martin and had shouted that he would, ‘get the grass who stitched him up’
  • Familiar voice (Flynn [2008] EWCA Crim 970, [2008] 2 Cr App R 20 (266))
• Martin Priddeaux
  • He didn’t specify any physical attributes which would describe the assailant, he only said that he thinks it was haydon and nobody was found when the police officer searched.
• Paul Guillam
  • Has previous convictions for fraud and perjury- can he be trusted??

2) Discuss the admissibility of the previous convictions of Haydon. (500 words)

• 1995 – Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life (4 years imprisonment)
  • Haydon has stated that he would not know how to obtain a gun, whereas he has been convicted if being in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
  • Need to check if this would be so, maybe its been too long time
• 1999 – Rape (6 years imprisonment)
• 2005 – Dwelling house burglary (4 years imprisonment)
• 2010 – Robbery (10 years imprisonment – the offence described above)

3) Discuss the admissibility of the comments made by Haydon to the police and the discovery of the gun. (750 words)

• Obtained unlawfully under the PACE act as they manipulated and tried to threaten him by intimidation
• However, when he spoke about the canal, he was not directly answering the questions of the police officers and seemed like a slip of the tongue, this paired with the fact that the weapon was actually found in the canal seems admissible

  You have been asked to prosecute James Haydon who has been charged with the murder of Martin Priddeaux. The facts are as follows; In 2010, Haydon and Priddeaux were arrested as a result of conspiracy to commit an armed robbery on a cash in transit van. Priddeaux admitted the offence in interview and Haydon denied it. Priddeaux agreed to give evidence for the prosecution in return for a discount to his sentence. Haydon was convicted after trial. Priddeaux was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and Haydon was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. As he was being sent to prison Haydon shouted that he would; ‘get the grass who stitched him up.’ Haydon was released from prison in December 2020. On 19 December 2021, at 21.02, Martin Priddeaux made a phone call to the police stating that he had seen a figure in his front garden. His address is 217 Martindale Street, Leicester. PC Wilberforce attended and took a statement from Priddeaux. In this statement Priddeaux said he had seen a shadowy figure at the far end of his garden behind a tree. He believed this man was James Haydon. He was unable to give any physical description. PC Wilberforce searched the area and could find not find anybody. At 23.37 on 19 December, William Tarr, Priddeaux’s neighbour heard a loud bang. He looked out of the window and saw a figure running away in the direction of Gilmorton Street. He called the police. At 00.13 hours on 20 December, police arrived and found the body of Martin Priddeaux. He had been shot. Police launched a murder investigation and made a number of appeals to the public. As a result they collected the following evidence;

1. 1)  Brian Sachs was on a bus travelling in the vicinity of the crime scene. At about 23.45 the bus was near Percival Street (which is adjacent to Gilmorton Street). Another passenger on the bus shouted that there was masked man getting into a car and that it looked suspicious. They asked Brian to write down the number of the car which he did. He did not see the car himself. Mr Sachs still has the note and the registration he wrote down is FOX 15AT. The police have been unable to locate the passenger who saw the car. The police have confirmed with the DVLA that the registered keeper of the car with that registration plate is James Haydon.
2. 2)  Police recovered a Sainsburys’ carrier bag from the garden of 217 Martindale Street. It was caught in a hedge. It was sent for scientific analysis. The result of this analysis was that a mixed sample of low-quality DNA was found on the bag. The expert analysis identified that at least three different people’s DNA were contained in the sample. One of these matched James Haydon. The expert report concludes that;

‘The odds against an innocent person coincidentally providing a DNA sample matching the crime sample (a.k.a. the 'random match probability') have been calculated at a million to one. This report can only comment on who the DNA came from. I cannot comment on how the DNA was deposited.’

1. 3)  Rebecca Bland was walking down Martindale Street at 23.30 on 19 December. She saw a

man walking towards her. He was holding a carrier bag which appeared to contain a heavy object. He also appeared to have what looked like a balaclava pulled back over his head. She described the man as being 6’0 tall, in his 50’s with a shaved head and stubble. She gave this account to the police on 21 December. Inspector Mendel, knowing this description matched Haydon, visited her at her home address and showed her a picture of Haydon. She agreed he looked very similar to the man she saw. He did not show her any other pictures. She does not know Haydon. Bland was subsequently asked to attend a VIPER parade. She identified an image of Haydon as being the man she saw.

1. 4)  Carla Westerby is also a neighbour of Priddeaux. She also heard the shooting. Immediately prior to it she was woken from her sleep by a voice next door shouting ‘I told you, you would get this you grass.’ Westerby was formerly employed as a court usher and worked in court during the 2010 trial. When she heard who the victim of the crime was, she realised that she recognised the voice as belonging to Haydon who she had heard speak when he gave evidence at his trial. She has not had any dealings with Haydon since the trial. She is certain that it was Haydon’s voice she heard.
2. 5)  The police were contacted by Paul Guillam on 27 January. Guillam provided a statement saying that he was sharing a flat with Haydon and that on 19 December Haydon left the flat at about 20.30 saying that he ‘had some business to sort out.’ He had a balaclava and a heavy item in a bag which looked like a gun. He returned home at about midnight. Guillam has provided a statement to the police however he has refused to testify saying he believes there will be retaliation and he is scared. Guillam had been arrested on 22 January for robbery and was in custody awaiting sentence. He has asked if providing the information would reduce his sentence. He has two previous convictions for fraud and one for perjury.

On 28 January, the police arrested Haydon. He is 5’11’ with a shaved head and stubble. Inspector Mendel and Sergeant Esterhese placed him in the police vehicle. Rather than taking him to the police station, the two officers drove him to a remote country lane where they parked the police vehicle. Mendel said to Haydon ‘look we can do this the easy way here, or the hard way back at the station. Tell us where the gun is or we tell Alleline you have been informing on him.’ (Alleline is a reference to Jack Alleline, who is suspected of being the head of a feared organised crime gang). Haydon replied ‘You can drag the canal all you want, you’ll never find it.’ This conversation was recorded on Mendel’s police body camera. In his statement Mendel explains this conversation by saying although he knew it would breach PACE, Code of Practice C, he thought it was necessary as he did not want there to be a gun in the public domain. The police subsequently searched the canal and found a revolver. Analysis of the barrel has established it was the gun which fired the shot which killed Priddeaux. There is no evidence to connect it to Haydon and no evidence to link Haydon to the canal. Haydon was interviewed on tape, under caution at the police station in the company of his solicitor Ms Smiley. He made no comment to all matters put to him. There is currently no other evidence against Haydon. Haydon is 55 years of age and has the following convictions; 1995 – Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life (4 years imprisonment) 1999 – Rape (6 years imprisonment) 2005 – Dwelling house burglary (4 years imprisonment) 2010 – Robbery (10 years imprisonment – the offence described above) Advise the CPS on the admissibility issues which arise in this case and the overall prospects of success. The defence have written to indicate that they are going to object to the introduction of much of the evidence and argue that there is no case to answer. They have indicated that Haydon denies any involvement with the murder and his presence at the scene. He makes no admissions to his car being in the area. He accepts that he has shopped at Sainsburys from time to time. He states that he would not know how to get a gun.  

Place your order