H, R. v

H, R. v

The directions given by the trial judge were sufficient and fair; there was no material misdirection regarding the independence of the complaint, cross-admissibility, contamination, or childhood memory. The convictions were not rendered unsafe by any alleged deficiencies in the directions.

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, Appeals, Jury Directions, Evidence, Historic Abuse
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Appeals Jury Directions Evidence Historic Abuse

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 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 the brothers’ complaint to their mother
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to direct the jury on the non cross-admissibility of the complainants’ evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to direct the jury on the dangers of contamination of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The directions given by the trial judge were sufficient and fair; there was no material misdirection regarding the independence of the complaint, cross-admissibility, contamination, or childhood memory. The convictions were not rendered unsafe by any alleged deficiencies in the directions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed