3. Oktober 2022
Disputes Quick Read – 38 von 99 Insights
On 21 September 2022, the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Kadir v R [2022] EWCA Crim 1244, which considered the issue of whether witnesses in a criminal trial can give evidence via WhatsApp.
Following a Crown Court trial, Mr Kadir was convicted of various sexual offences. During trial he applied to adduce evidence from a witness in Bangladesh via a WhatsApp video call. The trial judge refused the application. Unfortunately, there was no record of the judge's ruling (nor was any agreed note made by counsel of the ruling when it was given). The judge also refused permission for Mr Kadir to adduce a short statement from the witness as hearsay evidence. He appealed both rulings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
A unanimous Court of Appeal confirmed (under the temporary provisions of s.51 CJA 2003 in force at the time) that the judge did have the power to direct that the witness could give evidence from Bangladesh via WhatsApp, if satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to do so.
The panel went on to say that a judge in similar circumstances today would similarly have the power to direct a live link via WhatsApp under the statutory provisions now in force.
However, any decision to permit the use of WhatsApp is dependent on the facts of a particular case and the court emphasised that the onus is on the appellant to provide the judge with all the requisite information.
Mr Kadir's application was seriously deficient in many respects including that no request or enquiry, formal or informal, had been made of any relevant authority in Bangladesh, the failure of which meant that the judge lacked vital information in deciding whether it was in the interests of justice for a live link direction to be made (it was accepted on behalf of Mr Kadir that no steps were taken to establish whether Bangladesh was willing to permit a live link by WhatsApp).
Although the appeal was dismissed on the facts, the Court of Appeal confirmed its power to direct that a live link via WhatsApp (which uses end-to-end encryption) is capable of being used for giving evidence in open court on the basis that it is "sufficiently secure".
While this judgment is in the context of a criminal trial, and it remains to be seen whether a court in a civil action would come to the same view if faced with a similar application, the judgment is encouraging in that it demonstrates the court's continuing enthusiasm (and pragmatism) in embracing technology to improve the efficiency of the justice system.
Of course, the courts have already shown their willingness to permit WhatsApp to further the interests of justice, for example, by permitting service of a claim form via the messaging platform (Gray v Hurley [2019] EWHC 1636 (QB)).
This case is also a timely reminder of the importance of obtaining local permissions to give evidence in civil actions and that parties participating in virtual (or hybrid) hearings should ensure that arrangements are made (and the virtual platform technology thoroughly tested) so that any technical issues are identified and resolved in good time before the start of a hearing.
6. December 2024
14. November 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
14. November 2024
von Emma Allen
8. November 2024
von Edward Spencer
30. October 2024
von mehreren Autoren
15. October 2024
von Emma Allen, Andrew Spencer
16. July 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
5. July 2024
von Stuart Broom, Tom Charnley
21. March 2024
von Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
1. February 2024
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
12. February 2024
von Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev
14. December 2023
13. December 2023
23. October 2023
von mehreren Autoren
17. October 2023
12. September 2023
von Tom Charnley
14. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
4. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
21. July 2023
10. July 2023
1. June 2023
von mehreren Autoren
3. May 2023
von James Bryden
20. April 2023
von James Bryden
8. March 2023
2. March 2023
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
14. February 2023
13. February 2023
8. February 2023
von Jessie Prynne
19. January 2023
von Georgina Jones
3. October 2022
von Gemma Broughall
22. September 2022
von Ben Jones, Emma Allen
9. August 2022
von Nick Maday
25. July 2022
von Edward Spencer
6. July 2022
von Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28. July 2022
21. July 2022
von Edward Spencer
27. July 2022
von Stuart Broom
29. July 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
17. June 2022
von Stephanie High
13. June 2022
von Edward Spencer
26. May 2022
31. May 2022
von mehreren Autoren
4. April 2022
5. April 2022
von Stephanie High
31. March 2022
von mehreren Autoren
21. September 2021
von mehreren Autoren
13. September 2021
von Edward Spencer
6. September 2021
von Stephanie High
2. August 2021
21. July 2021
15. July 2021
von Jess Thomas
26. May 2021
von David de Ferrars
5. May 2021
von Stephen O'Grady
21. April 2021
von Stephanie High
31. March 2021
26. February 2021
von Tim Strong
24. February 2021
20. January 2021
von Stephanie High
12. January 2021
von Tim Strong
23. November 2020
16. October 2020
23. September 2020
7. October 2020
von Nick Storrs
26. May 2020
von Edward Spencer
12. May 2020
18. May 2020
von Katie Chandler
9. April 2020
von mehreren Autoren
15. April 2020
27. April 2020
von mehreren Autoren
21. April 2020
von Stephanie High
11. March 2020
von James Bryden
17. March 2020
von Stuart Broom
26. February 2020
von Tim Strong, Andrew Howell
21. February 2020
von Andrew Howell
2. June 2020
von Georgina Jones
16. June 2020
von Georgina Jones
2. July 2020
von Tim Strong, Georgina Jones
9. July 2020
21. July 2020
3. December 2021
24. November 2021
von Stuart Broom
8. October 2021
von Katie Chandler
10. January 2022
von Tim Strong, Jess Thomas
20. January 2022
8. March 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
22. March 2022
7. April 2022
von Emma Allen, Georgina Jones
von Gemma Broughall und Natalia Faekova
von Gemma Broughall
von Nick Storrs und Gemma Broughall