Smith, R. v

Smith, R. v

The Recorder correctly applied the statutory tests and balancing exercises under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and sections 100 and 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The exclusion of cross-examination and the admission of bad character evidence did not render the conviction unsafe. The directions to the jury were full, fair, and appropriate. There was no error in refusing to discharge the jury. The conviction is safe and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Dwayne Smith; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Offences, Bad Character Evidence, Jury Discharge, Cross Examination Limits, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Offences Bad Character Evidence Jury Discharge Cross Examination Limits Credibility of Witnesses

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dwayne Smith

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in refusing applications under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to cross-examine complainants about previous sexual behaviour
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder erred in refusing to discharge the jury after allowing bad character evidence under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of certain evidence rendered the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder correctly applied the statutory tests and balancing exercises under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and sections 100 and 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The exclusion of cross-examination and the admission of bad character evidence did not render the conviction unsafe. The directions to the jury were full, fair, and appropriate. There was no error in refusing to discharge the jury. The conviction is safe and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • No order as to costs