R vs Hayter Case Analysis - Essay Example

R v Hayter Introduction This work deals with an analysis of the case R V Hayter. In this regard, relevant legal principles relating to the issue of confession have been examined. Procedural and legal issues in the case have been scrutinised. In addition, opinions of the judges and evidentiary principles have been discussed. With the rejection of the appeal to the House of Lords, in R v Hayter, it was clearly established that the confession of a defendant could be admitted as evidence against a co – defendant in a jointly tried criminal case. The reasoning behind this common law principle is that a confession is evidence only against the maker. When another co – accused is implicated in a confession, then that person has no opportunity to challenge it. Moreover, the maker may have an ulterior motive in implicating that person (McGourlay, 2006, p. 133). Description of the Case In this case, Hayter’s appeal failed, as the House of Lords ruled that the jury was empowered to decide the guilt of Ryan on the basis of his out of court statement, and thereafter to use this finding of guilt as evidence against Hayter. It was opined by their Lordships that there was no justification for not using the guilt of Ryan as a fact evidentially against Hayter (Taylor, 2012, p. 120). Brief Facts In R v Hayter, the first defendant, approached the second defendant Hayter, in order to get her husband killed. The second defendant Hayter, thereupon, hired the third defendant Ryan, to execute her husband (House of Lords, Session 2004 – 2005, 2005). All the defendants were convicted of murder by the jury. In his appeal, Hayter contended that the judge had erred in law by directing the jury that if they convicted Ryan of murder, then they could employ their finding that Ryan was the murderer, as evidence in the case against Hayter. The latter also relied on the ground that the judge had erred in law by not withdrawing the case from the jury, when the Crown’s case was closed (Regina v Hayter, 2005). The court ruled that in a joint trial involving defendants for a joint offence, the jury could use their findings of one of the defendants’ guilt, which was entirely founded on that defendant’s out of court statement, as a fact with regard to another defendant in that case. However, the jury had to be sufficiently certain regarding the veracity of such evidence. While admitting such evidence, the main consideration is whether it is relevant in the sense that it either disproves or establishes a fact in issue. It will also have to be ascertained whether such evidence has a probative effect. If this evidence has no probative effect and neither proves no disproves a fact in issue, then it will be deemed to be inadmissible and irrelevant (Landa, et al., 2013, p. 8). As such, Ryan had been deemed to be guilty of murder, due to his out of court confession. Hayter was convicted on the basis of this confession. He contended that such confessions applied only to the person who had made them (House of Lords, Session 2004 – 2005, 2005). This appeal was rejected by their Lordships Commentary The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, under Section 74, empowers the prosecution to produce, as evidence, against an accused the conviction of another individual. This indicates that Parliament would have approved of the approach taken by the trial court and the House of Lords, in R v Hayter (OHanlon, 2005). Moreover, the confession to be admissible as evidence against a co – accused, would have to comply with the requirements of Section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In addition, Section 128 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, permits a co – defendant to resort to the confession of a defendant to establish his innocence (McGourlay, 2006, p. 133). This being the case, it is justified and logical to use a confession to implicate a co – defendant. In this case, the House of Lords considered whether the jury could use the findings of guilt against a defendant in a joint trial for a joint offence, which was solely based on the defendant’s out of court admissions, against another defendant in that case (Dwyer, 2005, p. 839). In general, the rule against hearsay renders out of court statements inadmissible. However, there are two exceptions to this rule. The first of these exceptions is that an out of court confession can be employed as evidence against its maker. Such statement need not be made to a person in authority. In addition, it need not necessarily be made in words. The other exception is that a previous verdict can be utilised as evidence in an ensuing trial, wherein there are deferent parties (Dwyer, 2005, p. 839). Previously, the common law stance had been that the opinion of the trial court did not have a binding effect upon subsequent proceedings involving deferent parties. As such, the rules against hearsay come into being, in order to provide protection against unreliable evidence. To this end, the following restrictions have been proposed. These limits are that a joint trial should be involved; the accused person making the confession should be guilty, if the other accused is to be convicted; only confessional evidence against self – interest is to be admitted against the other accused (Mathias, 2005). Conclusion There are two basic principles of criminal law underlying this appeal. The first principle is the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence and the other is that evidence admissible against a co – defendant cannot be used against another for evaluation of the latter’s guilt (Parliament UK, 2005). The question before House of Lords was whether the law was to be amended in a manner deemed as justified by the lower courts. The main problem in this case was whether the House of Lords must change the law concerned with the hearsay rule, if the Law commission and Parliament had failed to do so. The law was amended by a majority decision of 3 – 2 in this case. Consequently, in the House of Lords, the appeal of Hayter was rejected by a 3:2 majority. In accordance with the above discussion, it can be surmised that this decision had the effect of transforming the common law principle that a confession can be admitted as evidence, solely with regard to its maker and not against others who are jointly charged with the maker. References Criminal Justice Act 2003. Her Majestys Stationery Office. Dwyer, D. M., 2005. TheAdmissibilityof a Confession against a Co-defendant: R v Hayter. Modern Law Review, 68(5), pp. 839 – 848. House of Lords, Session 2004 – 2005, 2005. Judgments - Regina v Hayter (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)). [online] Available at: [Accessed 22 March 2013]. Landa, C. S., Ramjohn, M. & Landa, J., 2013. Unlocking Evidence. 2 ed. Taylor & Francis. Mathias, D., 2005. Bias and expertise. [online] Available at: [Accessed 22 March 2013]. McGourlay, C., 2006. Is criminal practice impervious to logic?: R v Hayter. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 10(2), pp. 128 – 133. OHanlon, K., 2005. Tuesday Law Report: Confession admissible against co-defendant in joint trial. [online] Available at: [Accessed 22 March 2013]. Parliament UK, 2005. Judgments - Regina v Hayter (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)). [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 March 2013]. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Her Majestys Stationery Office. Regina v Hayter (2005) UKHL 6. Taylor, C., 2012. Law Express: Evidence. 2 ed. Pearson UK. Read More