Key Facts
- •Carlos Vilhete appealed his conviction for grievous bodily harm (contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
- •The conviction was based on evidence admitted under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule: the complainant's 999 call and police bodycam footage.
- •The complainant withdrew her support for the prosecution and did not attend court.
- •The appeal questioned the Crown Court's decision to admit the evidence, focusing on the lack of efforts to secure the complainant's attendance and the fairness of the trial without cross-examination.
Legal Principles
Res gestae exception to the hearsay rule
Sections 114(1)(b) and 118(4)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; R v Andrews [1987] AC 281
Power to exclude evidence under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
Section 78 PACE
Duty of the prosecution to secure the attendance of key witnesses; Wills v CPS
Wills v Crown Prosecution Service [2016] EWHC 3779 (Admin)
Appeals to the Crown Court against conviction are re-hearings.
Section 79(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981
Balancing the interests of the complainant and the defendant in domestic violence cases.
R v C [2007] EWCA Crim 3463; DPP v Barton [2024] EWHC 1350 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed
The Crown Court properly considered whether the complainant could be brought to court and whether admitting the res gestae evidence was fair, despite the inability to cross-examine.