H, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2344 (25 October 2011)

H, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2344 (25 October 2011)

The directions given by the trial judge were sufficient in law; any lack of explicit direction on independence of complaint or cross-admissibility did not render the convictions unsafe given the facts, the nature of the evidence, and the overall fairness of the summing up.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Crim 2344
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: H
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Jury Directions, Cross Admissibility, Historic Abuse, Contamination of Evidence, Childhood Memory, Appeal Against Conviction
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Jury Directions Cross Admissibility Historic Abuse Contamination of Evidence Childhood Memory Appeal Against Conviction

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

H

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the independence of complaint evidence
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to direct the jury on cross-admissibility of complainants' evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to warn about the danger of contamination of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The directions given by the trial judge were sufficient in law; any lack of explicit direction on independence of complaint or cross-admissibility did not render the convictions unsafe given the facts, the nature of the evidence, and the overall fairness of the summing up.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed