R v Wood
R v Wood
(1982) 76 Cr App Rep 23
Court: CA
Judgment Date: circa 1982
Catchwords & Digest
CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – METHOD OF PROOF – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTS AND TAPE RECORDINGS – CALCULATIONS BY COMPUTER
After the theft of certain metals, metals of the same type were found in the defendant’s possession. In order to establish whether they were part of the stolen metals, chemists subjected them to elaborate analysis of which certain complicated calculations were a necessary part. These were carried out by means of a computer. On the basis of that analysis the metals in the defendant’s possession were found to be part of the stolen metals, and he was convicted of handling stolen goods. He appealed, contending that the computer results were inadmissible as being hearsay evidence: Held mere use of equipment in the course of investigation did not mean that the evidence so obtained was hearsay. In using the computer as a calculator, the chemists had only used it as a tool, and it had not contributed any knowledge of its own. Accordingly, the computer results were not hearsay; and the appeal would fail.
CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – METHOD OF PROOF – HEARSAY: EXCEPTIONS – BUSINESS ETC DOCUMENTS – CALCULATIONS BY COMPUTER
After the theft of certain metals, metals of the same type were found in the defendant’s possession. In order to establish whether they were part of the stolen metals, chemists subjected them to elaborate analysis of which certain complicated calculations were a necessary part. These were carried out by means of a computer. On the basis of that analysis the metals in the defendant’s possession were found to be part of the stolen metals, and he was convicted of handling stolen goods. He appealed, contending that the computer results were inadmissible as being hearsay evidence: Held mere use of equipment in the course of investigation did not mean that the evidence so obtained was hearsay. In using the computer as a calculator, the chemists had only used it as a tool, and it had not contributed any knowledge of its own. Accordingly, the computer results were not hearsay and the appeal would fail.
Cases referring to this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
| Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | CaseSearch |
| Applied | R v Skinner | [2005] EWCA Crim 1439, [2006] Crim LR 56, [2005] All ER (D) 324 (May) | CACrimD | 20/05/2005 | CaseSearch Entry |
| Followed | The People (at the suit of the DPP) v Murphy | [2005] IECCA 1, [2005] 2 IR 125 | IrCCA | 21/01/2005 | CaseSearch Entry |
| dictum Lord Lane CJ Applied | Castle v Cross | [1985] 1 All ER 87, [1984] 1 WLR 1372, [1985] RTR 62, [1984] Crim LR 682, 128 Sol Jo 855 | QBD | 17/07/1984 | CaseSearch Entry |
| Document information |
Court
Court of Appeal
Judgment date
circa 1982