“Q. I suppose you have got another ton of this stuff at home? A. No, that is all I got. Q. That is a hell of a lot of cannabis, what were you going to do with it? A. What do you mean? Q. Were you going to use it all yourself? A. No, I do not even smoke. Q. Have you got a customer then? A. You know already, I’m not going to tell you.”
“I know I’m in trouble, I know I could go to prison for a long time, I can tell you who gave it me. Will that help?”
“Admit that this is yours and let C go free. We’ll put you on a lesser charge and you’ll probably get a suspended sentence”
“(1) That when summing-up the judge at one point expressed his own view as to the appellant’s credibility in a way which went beyond justifiable comment, and showed bias against the appellant. The passage in question reads: 'Mr McGrail, for the defence, has his instructions, but grasping the nettle, because it is obvious to everyone in this court, is it not, that I think his client is lying; lying cunningly, the prosecution say, in that he admits matters of detail that do not point to his guilt, but denies - and I thing 'ducks and weaves' was one of the phrases used by counsel for the Crown - anything which he thinks hurts his case." (2) That the judge erred in law in admitting the evidence as to what the appellant said after on arrival at the police station, he allegedly asked to speak to DC Smith in private. Although, as we have said, there had been no application at the trial to exclude evidence counsel in this court sought to rely on sections 58 and 78 of the 1984 Act and a number of provisions of the Code of Practice.”
"The criminal trial is that based on the adversarial system and reliance is placed upon counsel to do what is right in the interest of his client. In any given case, defence counsel may have good tactical reasons for not raising objection in respect of evidence which is arguably inadmissible, and for preferring that the whole of the evidence goes before the jury. While a judge who notices a problem of admissibility in the depositions may seek to raise it with counsel in advance if he sees fit, he has no duty to do so."
"This Court cannot speculate what the evidence or what the ruling of the judge might have been had the matter been dealt with on an advance objection; nor what, for instance, the police officers would have said had the question of their precise state of mind under section 58(8) of the Act been explored in the absence of the jury. Evidence of the admissions having been given without the judge having been asked to rule on a prior objection, such admissions were properly before the jury, and this court sees no reason to criticise the judge for the way he dealt with the matter in his summing up."
“At that time it was usual to reserve cross-examination of police officers until the jury could see and hear their reactions. I took the view that it would have been pointless to forearm the detectives with knowledge of what I was going to ask, when there was no prospect of excluding evidence under PACE.”
“(a) By oppression of the person who made it; or (b) in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequence thereof.”
“The court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid.”
“Should obviously have been made and, if made, should have been granted and, if the court further takes the view that the conviction is thereby rendered unsafe.”
"I have always felt that the criticism of the trial Judge was unfair. In making the remark that the jury might think he disbelieved the accused, he was making an honest effort to cure any notion that by intervening in cross-examination of the Defendant, he was in some way pre-empting their decision. When Paton [that is to say prosecuting counsel] asked Mr Iroegbu if a pair of trousers was his, there was an agonised pause before the Appellant replied. Some of the jury were sniggering when Mr Iroegbu was asked to take from the laundry bag a red, white and green ski hat. Asked if he recognised it, he looked everywhere in the room for support, then triumphantly said 'not necessarily!' It was about then that Judge Coulthard said to him: 'Try and do yourself justice' or something similar. By the time the Court of Appeal had ruled, it was too late to do anything about it."
“Let me say a word about character. The defendant has not given any evidence before. He is a 27 year old Nigerian and living in this country. He has no convictions recorded against him. That is something which you put into the balance when you are weighing his evidence, in his favour....As I say, bear in mind that the accused is a man of good character and that really goes to whether or not you believe him.”