R v Dawson

HIS HONOUR: Ms Toni Melrose is currently waiting to be called as a witness in these proceedings. Ms Melrose gave a statement to the police at Southport Police Station on 15 June 2019. Part of what she told the police at that time is as follows: "I remembered XXX telling me Chris had manipulated the school programming so that XXX was in Chris' class". The reference to "XXX" is a reference to JC, and the reference to "Chris" is a reference to the accused in these proceedings.

On 19 May 2022, JC gave evidence and was cross-examined by Ms David on behalf of Mr Dawson. At line 37 on page 348 of the transcript, JC was asked the following question by Ms David:

The reference to "he" in that question is a reference to Mr Dawson. To that question JC responded:

The Crown now seeks to call Ms Melrose against the contingency that an attack upon JC’s credit will be made and, as it were, to restore her credibility at least on this point. Section 106 of the Evidence Act 1995 is headed "Exception: rebutting denials by other evidence”. The reference in the chapeau to that section to "exception" is a reference to the credibility rule which precludes the calling of evidence about the credibility of a witness. Section 106(1) is as follows:

In these proceedings, the Crown seeks to support the credibility of JC following her cross-examination by Ms David on the issue about whether or not Mr Dawson had ever told JC that he had arranged his schedule at Cromer High School in such a way that JC would become one of his students. JC gave evidence that Mr Dawson had done so.

The anticipated evidence from Ms Melrose is to the effect that at some time in her dealings with JC, JC told her the same thing: that is to say, that Mr Dawson had "manipulated the school programming" so that JC would be in his class.

In my view, the terms of s 106 have been satisfied by the cross-examination of JC and by the substance of the evidence that the Crown now wishes to call. Leave to adduce this evidence is necessary and the Crown has sought that leave. Having regard to the relationship between the evidence given by JC, which was challenged by Ms David, and the evidence anticipated to be given by Ms Melrose, which arguably supports JC’s response to Ms David’s challenge, it seems to me in the circumstances that it is proper to grant leave to the Crown to adduce the evidence from Ms Melrose.