Bad character evidence in respect of complainants in sexual assault allegations had been properly excluded where a judge had decided that it lacked substantial probative value as it did not establish a propensity towards general untruthfulness. That exclusion avoided the inevitable, grossly prejudicial, admission of the accused’s previous convictions for sexual offences.
ADMISSIBILITY ATTACKS ON CHARACTER BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.100 CRIMINAL LAW PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS Pt 1 s.100(1)(b) s.101 s.101(1)(d) s.101(1)(g) s.3 SEX OFFENDERS SEXUAL ASSAULT WHETHER JUDGE PROPERLY EXCLUDED COMPLAINANTS’ BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE
An acquittal on counts of rape and assault by penetration would be quashed and a retrial ordered where the complainant had left the country after giving an achieving best evidence interview and the Crown had offered no evidence at trial. There was new and compelling evidence in the form of the complainant’s evidence which was available when she returned to the country, and a retrial would be in the interests of justice.
ACQUITTAL FOLLOWING FOREIGN RAPE COMPLAINANT’S UNAVAILABILITY FOR TRIAL AND INADMISSIBILITY OF ACHIEVING BEST EVIDENCE INTERVIEW ACQUITTALS ASSAULT BY PENETRATION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.76 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE NEW AND COMPELLING EVIDENCE Pt 10 QUASHING ORDERS RAPE RETRIALS RETURN OF COMPLAINANT TO UK s.101(1)(d) s.101(1)(g) s.62 s.62(8) s.75 s.76(1) s.77 s.77(1) s.78 s.78(1) s.78(2) s.78(3) s.78(5) s.79 s.82 s.84
In a trial in which the defendant was charged with sexual offences, the judge had been wrong to admit “bad character” evidence suggesting that the defendant was a voyeur.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(c) DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH SEXUAL OFFENCES PROPRIETY OF DECISION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED VOYEURISTIC CONDUCT s.101(1) s.101(1)(d) s.101(3) s.102 s.103(1) s.103(1)(a) s.103(3) s.112(1)
A judge had been correct to admit a defendant’s previous bad character under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(g) since the conduct of that defendant in his evidence-in-chief amounted to an attack on prosecution witnesses. However, a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment had been manifestly excessive for breach of a sexual offences prevention order.
ADMISSIBILITY APPLICATION OF S.101(1)(G) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 BAD CHARACTER BREACH BREACH OF SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDER CONDUCT DURING EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(g) PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROPENSITY s.101(1)(d) s.103(1)(b) Sch.15 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS
The judge had been wrong to admit documents, prepared by police officers, giving details of methods used in the commission of offences of which the appellant had been previously convicted, but the appellant’s convictions for the instant offences were nevertheless safe. It was important that the formal procedures referred to in R. v Hanson (Nicky) (2005) EWCA Crim 824 , (2005) 1 W.L.R. 3169 were followed.
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSIBILITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT OFFENCES RETRIEVED FROM POLICE COMPUTER SYSTEM AGREEMENTS AS TO RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS CASE MANAGEMENT COMPLAINANTS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.117 CRIMINAL LAW METHODS USED POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 s.73 PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROPENSITY RELEVANT SEXUAL OFFENCES REQUIREMENT FOR STATEMENT BY PREVIOUS COMPLAINANT OF SEXUAL OFFENCE s.101 s.101(1)(d) s.101(d) s.103 s.103(1) s.103(1)(a) s.114(1) s.116(2) S.116(2) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 S.117 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.117(1) s.117(1)(a) s.2(b) SEXUAL ASSAULTS SEXUAL OFFENCES VICTIMS WITNESS STATEMENTS