H v R

H v R

The exclusion of defence expert evidence was correct as it amounted to inadmissible commentary on credibility and reliability, usurping the jury's function. Medical evidence before the jury did not breach the judge's ruling. The judge's direction on cruelty by neglect contained a misdirection regarding reliance on...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: H; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, False Memory Syndrome, Child Cruelty, Sexual Offences, Judicial Intervention, Good Character Direction
Criminal Law Evidence Law Child Protection Admissibility of Expert Evidence False Memory Syndrome Child Cruelty Sexual Offences Judicial Intervention +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of defence expert evidence on false memory syndrome was correct
  2. 2 Whether medical evidence crossed boundary into inadmissible opinion
  3. 3 Whether judge's direction on cruelty by neglect was misdirected

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of defence expert evidence was correct as it amounted to inadmissible commentary on credibility and reliability, usurping the jury's function. Medical evidence before the jury did not breach the judge's ruling. The judge's direction on cruelty by neglect contained a misdirection regarding reliance on the complainant's evidence and motive, but it did not render the conviction unsafe. Judicial intervention was within proper bounds and did not undermine fairness. The good character direction, though using 'entitled' rather than 'should', was adequate. Sentence for cruelty by neglect was excessive and reduced to 3 years; other sentences upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentence allowed in part.

Orders

  • Sentence for cruelty by neglect reduced from 5 years to 3 years imprisonment, concurrent.
  • All other sentences and convictions upheld.