White, R. v

White, R. v

The trial judge was correct to exclude cross-examination about the complainant's previous and contemporary activities as a prostitute because the evidence was too general, did not relate to specific instances with probative force as required by section 41(6), and was not relevant to the issue of consent on the facts of the case. The exclusion did not render the conviction unsafe or infringe the appellant's right to a fair trial.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Andre Barrington White
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Cross Examination of Complainant, Admissibility of Sexual History Evidence, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Evidence Law Human Rights Rape Consent Cross Examination of Complainant Admissibility of Sexual History Evidence Fair Trial Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Andre Barrington White

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing leave to cross-examine the complainant about her previous and contemporary activities as a prostitute under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of such evidence rendered the conviction unsafe or infringed the appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to exclude cross-examination about the complainant's previous and contemporary activities as a prostitute because the evidence was too general, did not relate to specific instances with probative force as required by section 41(6), and was not relevant to the issue of consent on the facts of the case. The exclusion did not render the conviction unsafe or infringe the appellant's right to a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld