Halliday, R v [2019] EWCA Crim 1457 (6 August 2019)

Halliday, R v [2019] EWCA Crim 1457 (6 August 2019)

The judge was correct to admit SP's evidence as bad character evidence under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as it was relevant to propensity and the similarities between the incidents were striking. The judge's refusal to discharge the jury after prosecuting counsel's remarks was within his discretion and did not cause unfair prejudice. The refusal to allow cross-examination of SP's sexual history was correct under section 41. The evidence of prior conduct in a prostitution area was admissible and relevant. The sentence imposed was within the appropriate range, justified by the facts, and the finding of dangerousness was supported by the evidence.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 1457
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Robert Halliday
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Bad Character Evidence, Adducing Fresh Evidence, Dangerousness, Sentencing Guidelines, Sexual Offences, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Rape Bad Character Evidence Adducing Fresh Evidence Dangerousness Sentencing Guidelines Sexual Offences Admissibility of 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Robert Halliday

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting bad character evidence from SP under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether prosecuting counsel's remarks in opening speech caused unfair prejudice requiring discharge of the jury
  3. 3 Whether the judge wrongly refused defence applications under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct to admit SP's evidence as bad character evidence under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as it was relevant to propensity and the similarities between the incidents were striking. The judge's refusal to discharge the jury after prosecuting counsel's remarks was within his discretion and did not cause unfair prejudice. The refusal to allow cross-examination of SP's sexual history was correct under section 41. The evidence of prior conduct in a prostitution area was admissible and relevant. The sentence imposed was within the appropriate range, justified by the facts, and the finding of dangerousness was supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused