R v Hall

The appeal in R v Hall concerns the admissibility of a video-taped interview of the appellant, Curtis Richard Hall, who is charged with aggravated robbery. Hall applies for leave to appeal against a pre-trial ruling of Judge Ingram, which held that, subject to a number of excisions being made, the video-taped interview of Hall was admissible in evidence against him. Hall submits that the whole of the video interview is inadmissible. He asserts that it was either influenced by oppression, in terms of s 29 of the Evidence Act 2006, or alternatively that it was unfair in terms of s 30 of that Act. If that submission is not accepted, he argues that two further passages should have been excised from the video.

The issues therefore are: (a) whether the Judge should have excluded the whole of the interview; or (b) if not, whether further excisions should be made.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no evidential foundation for any allegation that the statement was influenced by oppression. Section 29 of the Evidence Act thus had no application. The Court also did not consider that s 30 of the Evidence Act had any application. Apart from one further passage, the Court saw no unfairness in the remainder of the interview. The admissions in the remainder of the interview were made by Hall in full knowledge of his rights and the consequences of making his statement. They were given both spontaneously and in response to proper questioning from the detective. The Court found that the remainder of the interview was admissible in evidence.

The Court did, however, consider that the second passage highlighted by Mr Cooke should be excised. This was the passage where the detective was effectively, by the forceful manner in which he was speaking, giving evidence rather than allowing Hall to give his account of what had happened. It was thus not truly the statement of Hall. The Court agreed.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed but only to the extent that the further passage set out at [19] is excised from the interview. Apart from that passage and those passages excised by Judge Ingram, the video interview is admissible in evidence.