Robotham v R [2007] EWCA Crim 2784 (27 November 2007)

Robotham v R [2007] EWCA Crim 2784 (27 November 2007)

The Court held that the fresh evidence from the NSPCC and regarding previous allegations did not undermine the safety of the conviction. The evidence did not support the appellant's contention that the complainant and his grandfather fabricated the NSPCC contact to explain the delay. The jury would have accepted that the calls were made and that the delay was explained. The previous allegations were not material to the credibility of the complainant or the fairness of the trial. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Crim 2784
Parties
Appellant: John Robotham; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Referred by Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Fresh Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses, Delay in Complaint, Disclosure, Safety of Conviction
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Fresh Evidence Credibility of Witnesses Delay in Complaint Disclosure Safety of Conviction

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Robotham

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Referred by Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence regarding NSPCC contact and previous allegations by the complainant render the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the delay in reporting the alleged assault was adequately explained
  3. 3 Whether the defence was prejudiced by lack of disclosure or failure to cross-examine on previous allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the fresh evidence from the NSPCC and regarding previous allegations did not undermine the safety of the conviction. The evidence did not support the appellant's contention that the complainant and his grandfather fabricated the NSPCC contact to explain the delay. The jury would have accepted that the calls were made and that the delay was explained. The previous allegations were not material to the credibility of the complainant or the fairness of the trial. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed