PROPENSITY

A judge had been correct in not permitting a defendant to cross-examine a complainant concerning a telephone recording where the complainant had allegedly confessed to murder, as it was not relevant to the issues in the case, namely whether the complainant had consented to intercourse, and fabricated evidence.

A 30-year delay on the part of a complainant did not render an offender’s convictions for indecent assault, indecency with a child, and rape unsafe as the judge had sufficiently dealt with any prejudice to the offender in his summing up and directions to the jury and there had been other evidence that supported the complainant’s evidence.

The appellant’s conviction for sexual offences committed against a 12- or 13-year-old boy was unsafe given the admission in evidence of his prior conviction for the buggery of a 17-year-old male; the essence of the allegation in the instant case was that the appellant had committed violent, paedophilic offences against the will of a 12- or 13-year-old victim, whereas the buggery offence involved consensual sexual relations with a person who would now be above the age of consent.

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 had continued to maintain his innocence and the judge had continued to conduct the trial entirely fairly.

The court upheld the convictions of a male nurse for several counts of sexual assault upon women patients who were coming round after general anaesthetic in circumstances where the offender claimed that the complainants had experienced false memories as a side effect of the anaesthetic and the judge had given an appropriate direction to a jury in relation to its consideration of the evidence of several complainants for an assessment of the likelihood of the coincidence.

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.

Where a defendant, charged with committing sexual offences against his stepdaughters, had attacked the character of one of the victims, the judge had been entitled to allow the prosecution to admit evidence of the defendant’s previous convictions for non-sexual offences in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(g).

Appeals against convictions for numerous and various sexual offences were dismissed where the judge had correctly admitted evidence of the making of complaints under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.120(2) and evidence as to bad character, and had not misled the jury in his directions.

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.