Guthrie, R. v [2016] EWCA Crim 1633 (19 October 2016)

Guthrie, R. v [2016] EWCA Crim 1633 (19 October 2016)

The trial judge was entitled to refuse cross-examination under section 41 as the alleged previous sexual behaviour lacked sufficient similarity and chronological nexus to be probative; the judge correctly admitted previous convictions as evidence of propensity to violence under section 101, and the directions to the jury regarding hearsay evidence were proper and left the issue for the jury to decide. There was no error in law or unfairness rendering the conviction unsafe.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Crim 1633
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Germaine Guthrie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Bad Character Evidence, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Section 101 Criminal Justice Act 2003, Hearsay Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Rape Bad Character Evidence Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Section 101 Criminal Justice Act 2003 Hearsay 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Germaine Guthrie

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing cross-examination of the complainant under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting and directing the jury on the appellant's previous convictions as evidence of propensity under section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's directions regarding hearsay evidence from the appellant's brother were unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to refuse cross-examination under section 41 as the alleged previous sexual behaviour lacked sufficient similarity and chronological nexus to be probative; the judge correctly admitted previous convictions as evidence of propensity to violence under section 101, and the directions to the jury regarding hearsay evidence were proper and left the issue for the jury to decide. There was no error in law or unfairness rendering the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • No order as to costs