Evans v R.

Evans v R.

The evidence of 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. The evidence is relevant and admissible under section 41(3)(c)(i) YJCEA and may also be relevant under section 41(3)(a) on the issue of reasonable belief. Exclusion of this evidence would endanger the fairness of the trial. There is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence at trial. The appeal must be allowed.

Parties
Appellant: Chedwyn Evans; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission Under Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995; Appeal Against Conviction
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, Fair Trial, Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Criminal Law Rape Fresh Evidence Admissibility of Sexual History Evidence Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Fair Trial Criminal Appeal Act 1968

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

Parties

Chedwyn Evans

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission Under Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995; Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence from Tristin Owens, Angela Owens, and Steven Hughes undermines the safety of the conviction
  2. 2 Whether the evidence is credible, has a reasonable explanation for not being adduced at trial, and would afford a ground of appeal
  3. 3 Whether the evidence is admissible under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of 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. The evidence is relevant and admissible under section 41(3)(c)(i) YJCEA and may also be relevant under section 41(3)(a) on the issue of reasonable belief. Exclusion of this evidence would endanger the fairness of the trial. There is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence at trial. The appeal must be allowed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • Retrial ordered