R v Hayter

Judgments - Regina v Hayter (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

HOUSE OF LORDS

SESSION 2004-05
[2005] UKHL 6
on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Crim 1048

OPINIONS

OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL

FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

Regina

v.

Hayter (Appellant)

(On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

ON

THURSDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2005

The Appellate Committee comprised:

HOUSE OF LORDS

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE CAUSE

Regina v. Hayter (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

[2005] UKHL 6

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL

My Lords,

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinions of all my noble and learned friends. For the reasons given by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, which are substantially those of Lord Steyn also, I too would answer both the certified questions in the affirmative and would accordingly dismiss this appeal.

LORD STEYN

My Lords,

I. The case in a nutshell

On the present appeal a point of law of general public importance arises about the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant.

What the point is, and how it arises, is best introduced by a simplified description of the real case of murder which in June 2001 came for trial before Judge Hyam, the Recorder of London, and a jury. The trial took place at the Central Criminal Court. Three defendants were charged with murder. All three were indicted as principals. The prosecution case was as follows. The first defendant (Bristow) was a woman who wanted to arrange a contract killing of her husband. The evidence against her came from a number of sources and was cogent. The third accused (Ryan) was the killer who actually shot and killed the husband of the first defendant. The evidence against the killer was solely based on a confession which he had allegedly made to his girlfriend. The prosecution case was that the contract killing was arranged by the first defendant through the second accused (Hayter) who engaged and paid the killer. The judge invited the jury to consider in logical phases the cases against the alleged killer, then against the woman who allegedly procured the killing, and finally against the middleman. The judge directed the jury that only if they found both the actual gunman, and the woman who arranged the killing, guilty of murder, would it be open to them, taking into account those findings of guilt, together with other evidence against the middleman, to convict the middleman. The jury convicted all three defendants of murder.

The principal argument on behalf of the middleman was and is that the rule that an out of court confession by one defendant may not be used by the prosecution against a co-defendant has been breached by the way in which the judge directed the jury.

CaseChat Overview and Summary