R v Pearce

The Crown appeals against a ruling of Ronald Young J that part of an out of Court statement made by one of the co-accused, Nicholas Edgarton, could be used by the Crown against the appellant, Richard Pearce. The Crown seeks to use Mr Edgarton’s statement that “you could see the TV on” as part of its case against the appellant for the purpose of establishing that the appellant must also have been able to see that the television was on. Such evidence, if accepted by the jury would, of course, be relevant to the question of the appellant’s state of mind. The Court grants leave to appeal and allows the appeal. It holds that the statement is inadmissible against the appellant. The Court holds that the observations of this Court in R v Fenton and R v Manase do not justify admission of Mr Edgarton’s statement as part of the Crown case against the appellant. The Court also holds that there is no analogy between R v Hayter and the case before it.