A judge had not erred in admitting evidence of an individual’s previous conviction for possessing an indecent image of a child in his trial for rape and sexual assault of a child. It was admissible as evidence relevant to an issue in the case, namely his inappropriate sexual interest in young girls.
A judge receiving fresh prosecution evidence during the course of a trial might have put undue pressure on a defendant to change his plea by indicating that he would give a reasonable amount of credit if he did so. However, the incident could not lay the foundation for an allegation of bias because the defendant […]
Evidence which was sought to be admitted under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(d) as evidence of propensity was not inadmissible simply because the behaviour it evidenced post-dated the offences being tried.
Possible confusion caused by conflicting good and bad character directions to the jury was sufficient to make an appellant’s conviction for attempting to abduct a child unsafe.
The erroneous admission of disputed bad character evidence by a trial judge had resulted in the trial of collateral issues which significantly contributed to the lengthening of a trial such that it had been very difficult for the jury to maintain focus. Accordingly, the conviction for rape, sexual assault, false imprisonment, threatening to kill and […]
Where a judge had given a direction to the jury that it was not to convict the defendant only on the basis of his similar previous conviction and, looking at the matter overall, the judge had properly admitted evidence of the previous conviction under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(g).
A judge had been correct to admit a defendant’s previous convictions as bad character under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(d), despite their being over 30 years old, since they had relevant factual similarities to the offence charged and were of sufficient probative force.
