N(H) v R.

N(H) v R.

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was not required to give a direction on collusion or contamination in the absence of evidence supporting such a risk, and the directions given on inconsistencies were adequate. The defence case was that the complainants were lying, not that there was innocent contamination, and the judge's directions reflected the issues raised at trial.

Parties
Appellant: N(H); Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Jury Directions, Collusion, Contamination of Evidence, Inconsistencies in Witness Evidence
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Jury Directions Collusion Contamination of Evidence Inconsistencies in Witness Evidence

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N(H)

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to give an explicit warning to the jury about the dangers of collusion and contamination between complainants' evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury as to the significance of inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainants

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was not required to give a direction on collusion or contamination in the absence of evidence supporting such a risk, and the directions given on inconsistencies were adequate. The defence case was that the complainants were lying, not that there was innocent contamination, and the judge's directions reflected the issues raised at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed