Nicholson v R.

Nicholson v R.

The trial judge properly allowed count 3 to go to the jury as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to assess; the directions on cross-admissibility and propensity were appropriate and balanced, ensuring the jury considered each count separately and did not overvalue coincidence; statistical evidence of the rarity of false memory was not required for the jury to consider the improbability of coincidence, given the expert evidence presented.

Parties
Appellant: Gavin Nicholson; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Evidence, Cross Admissibility, Bad Character Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Cross Admissibility Bad Character Evidence 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gavin Nicholson

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in allowing count 3 to go to the jury (no case to answer)
  2. 2 Whether the judge's directions on cross-admissibility and propensity were proper
  3. 3 Whether the absence of statistical evidence on the rarity of false memory undermined the fairness of the trial

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge properly allowed count 3 to go to the jury as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to assess; the directions on cross-admissibility and propensity were appropriate and balanced, ensuring the jury considered each count separately and did not overvalue coincidence; statistical evidence of the rarity of false memory was not required for the jury to consider the improbability of coincidence, given the expert evidence presented.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • No order as to costs