Robotham v R

Robotham v R

The Court found that the fresh evidence regarding the NSPCC contact, prior allegations by the complainant, and the compensation application did not undermine the safety of the conviction. The relationship between the defence legal executive and the investigating officer was known to the appellant and did not affect...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: John Robotham; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After CCRC Reference
Outcome
appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Appeal Against Conviction, Fresh Evidence, Conflict of Interest, Witness Credibility
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Appeal Against Conviction Fresh Evidence Conflict of Interest Witness Credibility

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Robotham

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After CCRC Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence regarding NSPCC contact and prior allegations by the complainant render the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between defence legal executive and investigating officer created a conflict of interest undermining the fairness of the trial
  3. 3 Whether evidence of a financial motive or compensation claim undermined the credibility of the complainant

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the fresh evidence regarding the NSPCC contact, prior allegations by the complainant, and the compensation application did not undermine the safety of the conviction. The relationship between the defence legal executive and the investigating officer was known to the appellant and did not affect the fairness of the trial. The failure to call certain witnesses or adduce certain evidence did not render the conviction unsafe. The cumulative effect of the matters raised did not create a real possibility that the conviction was unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal refused