Auteur
Gemma broughall

Gemma Broughall

Collaborateur senior

Read More
Auteur
Gemma broughall

Gemma Broughall

Collaborateur senior

Read More

3 octobre 2022

Disputes Quick Read – 1 de 62 Publications

Disputes Quick Read: A new approach to giving evidence? WhatsApp with that?

  • Quick read

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. 

What is the case about?

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.

Is WhatsApp a permissible means of giving evidence?

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).

Why is the decision significant?

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.

Dans cette série

Cryptoactifs, blockchain et technologie des registres distribués (DLT) et projets Web 3.0

Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime

9 August 2022

par Nick Maday, Katie Fry-Paul

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction

Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts

28 July 2022

par Emma Allen, Samantha Brendish

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Key changes to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme

13 September 2021

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: UK Supreme Court rules on the territorial extent of the SFO's powers

26 February 2021

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices

23 September 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: The importance of proper service

26 May 2020

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: The latest on Unexplained Wealth Orders

7 May 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Coronavirus

Disputes Quick Read: COVID-19 and supply chain disruption – key issues

9 April 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms

27 April 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Coronavirus

Disputes Quick Read: Embracing remote hearings – the experience to date

26 March 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes quick read: pilot error?

13 February 2020

par Andrew Howell

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure – out of control?

10 November 2021

par Alexandra Boreham

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it

7 April 2022

par plusieurs auteurs

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Service by email still appears to be taxing for litigants

9 novembre 2022
Quick read

par Gemma Broughall

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus
Résolution des litiges

The Law Commission's Consultation on the Arbitration Act 1996: Fine-tuning or full-on reform?

24 octobre 2022

par Nick Storrs et Gemma Broughall

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus
Woman using transparent computer screen

Are you being served? Service by email

28 août 2019
Short Read

par Gemma Broughall

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus