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
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 poisoning was unsafe.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2005 r.3.10(h) EFFECT OF ADMISSION OF DISPUTED BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE ON LENGTH OF TRIAL JURY DIRECTIONS LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 s.74(3) r.1.1(2)(e) r.1.2(1)(a) r.3.5(2)(b) r.31.1(2) RAPE ALLEGATIONS s.101 s.101(1) s.101(1)(b) s.101(1)(c) s.101(1)(f) s.101(1)(g) s.101(3) s.103 s.103(1)(a) s.107 s.78 SEXUAL OFFENCES TRIAL OF SATELLITE ISSUES
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).
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS CONVICTION UNDER S.101(1)(G) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 APPROPRIATENESS OF ADMISSION IN LIGHT OF RELEVANT JURY DIRECTION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GUILTY PLEAS JURY DIRECTIONS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS s.101(1)(g) s.101(3) s.101(4) s.103 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003
Please use the form below to make contact. Your email will be responded to promptly (we endeavour to respond to all email enquiries within one hour). Alternatively, you can call Stephen's firm, Twelve Tabulae Limited, on +44 (0) 203 846 5801.