Philip Norman v R

Philip Norman v R

The trial judge misdirected the jury by failing to leave to them the issue of whether the appellant had proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he did not commit the previous offences. The directions treated the previous convictions as conclusive, thereby depriving the appellant of the opportunity to rebut the presumption under section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This misdirection was material and rendered the conviction unsafe, particularly as the credibility of the complainant and the appellant was central and both gave evidence on all counts.

Parties
Appellant: Philip Norman; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Bad Character Evidence, Previous Convictions, Jury Directions, Section 74 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Bad Character Evidence Previous Convictions Jury Directions Section 74 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Norman

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on how to treat the appellant’s previous convictions under section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to challenge the correctness of his previous convictions and have that issue left to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the misdirection rendered the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge misdirected the jury by failing to leave to them the issue of whether the appellant had proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he did not commit the previous offences. The directions treated the previous convictions as conclusive, thereby depriving the appellant of the opportunity to rebut the presumption under section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This misdirection was material and rendered the conviction unsafe, particularly as the credibility of the complainant and the appellant was central and both gave evidence on all counts.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • The appellant’s convictions on counts 1-5 are quashed.