DM, R. v (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Crim 674 (20 May 2016)

DM, R. v (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Crim 674 (20 May 2016)

The Recorder's admission of bad character evidence was within his discretion and not unfair. However, the jury was not properly directed that, for acts before the appellant's 14th birthday, there must be clear evidence beyond the acts themselves that he knew his conduct was seriously wrong. This misdirection was material only to count 1, where the timing was uncertain, and not to counts 2 and 3. Accordingly, the conviction on count 1 was unsafe and must be quashed.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Crim 674
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: DM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Bad Character Evidence, Doli Incapax, Historic Abuse, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Bad Character Evidence Doli Incapax Historic Abuse Jury Directions

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

DM

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of bad character relating to incidents before the appellant's 14th birthday was admissible
  2. 2 Whether the jury was properly directed on the presumption of doli incapax for offences allegedly committed before age 14
  3. 3 Whether the conviction on count 1 was safe given possible misdirection

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder's admission of bad character evidence was within his discretion and not unfair. However, the jury was not properly directed that, for acts before the appellant's 14th birthday, there must be clear evidence beyond the acts themselves that he knew his conduct was seriously wrong. This misdirection was material only to count 1, where the timing was uncertain, and not to counts 2 and 3. Accordingly, the conviction on count 1 was unsafe and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction on count 1 quashed
  • Convictions on counts 2 and 3 upheld