ER, R v

ER, R v

The conviction was unsafe because the admission of wide-ranging and prejudicial expert evidence on delayed reporting improperly influenced the jury, and the issue should have been addressed by judicial warning rather than expert testimony.

Parties
Appellant: E. R.; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed, conviction quashed, retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Fair Trial, Sexual Offences, Judicial Warnings, Retrial
Criminal Law Admissibility of Expert Evidence Fair Trial Sexual Offences Judicial Warnings Retrial

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. R.

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to stay the prosecution due to passage of time
  2. 2 Whether the admission of expert evidence on delayed reporting of sexual abuse was improper and prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe because the admission of wide-ranging and prejudicial expert evidence on delayed reporting improperly influenced the jury, and the issue should have been addressed by judicial warning rather than expert testimony.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, conviction quashed, retrial ordered

Orders

  • fresh indictment to be served and rearraignment within two months
  • retrial to take place in Manchester unless otherwise directed