R v Crowther-Wilkinson; R v Cowie

The appellants, Crowther-Wilkinson and Cowie, were convicted of various drug-related offences and appealed against their convictions. The primary issue before the court was whether the Crown was entitled to cross-examine a witness who had no recollection of events at the time of the trial. The court had to determine whether the witness's evidence was "unfavourable" within the meaning of section 38(1)(a) of the Evidence Act, which permits the Crown to cross-examine a witness whose evidence is unfavourable to the accused, if the witness has no recollection of events at the time of giving evidence. The court also had to consider whether the witness's evidence could be qualified by material contained in a later statement, where the witness had no recollection at the time of trial.

The court held that the witness's evidence was indeed "unfavourable" to the appellants, as it was consistent with the Crown's case and contradicted the appellants' defence. The court further held that the Crown was entitled to cross-examine the witness, as the witness's evidence was relevant to the issues in the case and had the potential to affect the outcome of the trial. The court also held that the witness's evidence could be qualified by material contained in a later statement, where the witness had no recollection at the time of trial, as long as the later statement was made before the witness lost recollection of the events. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the later statement as evidence and that the appellants' convictions were therefore upheld.

The court dismissed the appellants' appeal against conviction and sentence. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the witness's evidence and that the appellants' convictions were therefore properly based on the evidence adduced at trial. The court further held that the appellants' arguments that the witness's evidence was unreliable and should not have been admitted were without merit, as the trial judge had properly considered the witness's credibility and had found the evidence to be reliable. The court therefore upheld the appellants' convictions and sentences, and dismissed their appeal.