R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 6)

In this case, the respondents, who were charged with murder, sought leave to cross-examine a prosecution witness who had not been called to testify at the trial. The High Court was asked to decide whether the respondents should be granted leave to cross-examine the witness, whose testimony was considered unfavourable to the respondents. The respondents argued that they were entitled to cross-examine the witness to test the reliability of their evidence and to challenge any inconsistencies in their statements.

The legal issue before the court was whether the respondents had a right to cross-examine the prosecution witness, despite the fact that the witness had not been called to testify at the trial. The court considered whether the respondents' right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Constitution, included the right to cross-examine any witness whose evidence was relevant to the case. The court also considered whether the prosecution had a duty to call all relevant witnesses to testify at the trial, or whether they could selectively call witnesses whose evidence was favourable to their case.

The court held that the respondents did not have an absolute right to cross-examine any witness whose evidence was relevant to the case. The court recognised that the prosecution had a degree of discretion in deciding which witnesses to call to testify at the trial, and that this discretion was not unlimited. However, the court held that the prosecution's discretion was not absolute, and that the respondents were entitled to challenge the reliability of any evidence that was relied upon by the prosecution. The court held that the respondents were entitled to cross-examine the prosecution witness if their evidence was considered unfavourable to the respondents, and if the court was satisfied that the witness's evidence was relevant to the case. The court also held that the respondents' right to a fair trial included the right to challenge the reliability of any evidence that was relied upon by the prosecution, even if that evidence was not given in cross-examination.

The court ultimately granted the respondents leave to cross-examine the prosecution witness. The court held that the witness's evidence was relevant to the case, and that the respondents were entitled to challenge the reliability of that evidence. The court also held that the prosecution's failure to call the witness to testify at the trial was not a sufficient reason to deny the respondents' application for leave to cross-examine the witness. The court held that the respondents' right to a fair trial outweighed any prejudice that might be caused to the prosecution by the cross-examination of the witness. The court ordered that the respondents be granted leave to cross-examine the prosecution witness, and that the trial proceed accordingly.