Home / News & Events

Stan Reiz secures acquittal of defendant charged in frenzied stabbing of his brother

The defendant;  Mr PS, was arrested for the attempted murder of his brother in 2005. His brother had complained that he had been attacked by Mr PS and two other brothers. The complainant suffered twelve stab wounds to the stomach and arms. He was also assaulted with a handsaw. The injuries sustained were extreme. The wounds to the complainant's stomach caused his intestines and vital organs to become visible to shocked witnesses who attended to him.

The Crown's case was that this defendant inflicted the stab wounds. The original trial was listed later in 2005 when the two co-defendants entered guilty pleas to unlawful wounding. Mr PS had in the interim escaped from a psychiatric hospital where he was being assessed as to his fitness to plead.

The defendant was eventually detained in Ireland and extradited in January 2009. He faced one count of wounding with intent at the Harrow Crown Court in May. Neither the complainant, nor his wife (a witness to the assault) attended Court to give evidence on the day of trial. They had indicated to the police that they no longer wished to co-operate with the prosecution. As both witnesses were outside the UK, the Court could not compel them to attend. The Crown applied to read their statements as hearsay under section 116(2)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

After lengthy legal argument during which the principles laid out in the recent European case of Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK [2009] ECHR 26766/05 were considered, the trial Judge declined to admit the witness statements as hearsay. He also indicated that although there was forensic evidence (blood on two handsaws found at the scene) incriminating the defendant, the evidence was not strong enough on its own for the indictment to be left to the jury.

Although the allegation was very serious and ultimately would not be resolved by the trial process, the Court accepted the submission that the defendant's right to confront his accuser and test significant evidence against him through cross-examination was a fundamental part of his Article 6 right to a fair trial. In the absence of such an opportunity, the trial itself would be unfair. The Crown considered an appeal pursuant to section 58 of the CJA 2003 overnight as this was effectively a terminatory ruling. However, after the case had been considered at the highest level within the CPS, no evidence was offered and a formal verdict of not guilty was entered.

Later that week, the Court of Appeal gave judgement in R v Horncastle [2009] EWCA Crim 964 which makes the current position as to admission of hearsay evidence which is decisive unclear. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was given and judgement is awaited in that case.

24 March 2009

Top of page