Evans v R. [2016] EWCA Crim 452 (21 April 2016)

Evans v R. [2016] EWCA Crim 452 (21 April 2016)

The fresh evidence from Tristin Owens and Steven Hughes regarding the complainant's sexual behaviour is sufficiently similar to the appellant's account that it cannot reasonably be explained as a coincidence. There is a reasonable explanation for its absence at trial. The evidence is relevant and admissible under section 41(3)(c)(i) YJCEA 1999 and may have affected the jury's verdict. The conviction is therefore unsafe and the appeal must be allowed.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Crim 452
Parties
Appellant: Chedwyn Evans; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction on CCRC Reference
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Rape, Fresh Evidence, Admissibility of Sexual History Evidence, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Fair Trial, Consent
Criminal Law Rape Fresh Evidence Admissibility of Sexual History Evidence Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 Fair Trial Consent

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chedwyn Evans

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction on CCRC Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence from third parties regarding the complainant's sexual behaviour is admissible under section 41 YJCEA 1999
  2. 2 Whether the failure to adduce such evidence at trial was reasonably explained
  3. 3 Whether the evidence would have affected the safety of the conviction

Ratio Decidendi

The fresh evidence from Tristin Owens and Steven Hughes regarding the complainant's sexual behaviour is sufficiently similar to the appellant's account that it cannot reasonably be explained as a coincidence. There is a reasonable explanation for its absence at trial. The evidence is relevant and admissible under section 41(3)(c)(i) YJCEA 1999 and may have affected the jury's verdict. The conviction is therefore unsafe and the appeal must be allowed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • Retrial ordered