Rupert, led by James Wood KC of Doughty Street Chambers, featured in an interlocutory appeal from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal, having raised an exceptional argument that the Crown Court could use section 78 of PACE to exclude evidence that the defendant, who was from a conservative Muslim family, had been involved in gay relationships during the currency of his marriage to the complainant, who was the victim of allegations of modern slavery and controlling and coercive behaviour. The argument was raised on the basis of the potentially devastating consequences to him and his family were he to be ‘outed’ by virtue of the service of the evidence. The defendant’s four co-defendants (who were excluded from the hearing) were his father, mother, brother and sister. Whilst the Court of Appeal declined to overturn the trial judge’s decision to admit the evidence (which was relevant to the issues in the case), the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision to hold a preparatory hearing in the absence of the co-defendants, a matter which the Crown had opposed. The argument raised on behalf of the defendant was described by Fulford LJ, who gave the judgment, as ‘a novel point of statutory interpretation’.
Rupert Hallowes and his leader were instructed by Pamela Martin of Vickers Solicitors.
The judgment is reported as R v M [2024] 1 Cr.App.R. 20.
