Harris, R. v (Rev 3)

Harris, R. v (Rev 3)

The conviction on Count 1 was unsafe due to the late disclosure of evidence undermining the credibility of the only independent witness corroborating the complainant's account; the remaining convictions were safe as the fresh evidence and disclosure issues did not materially affect the evidence on those counts, and the cross-admissibility directions did not render the other convictions unsafe.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Rolf Harris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conviction on Count 1 quashed; appeal refused on Counts 2-12.
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Sexual Offences, Fresh Evidence, Disclosure Obligations, Cross Admissibility, Appeal Against Conviction
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Sexual Offences Fresh Evidence Disclosure Obligations Cross Admissibility Appeal Against 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Rolf Harris

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence renders the conviction on Count 1 unsafe
  2. 2 Whether disclosure failures render convictions on Counts 10-12 unsafe
  3. 3 Whether cross-admissibility directions render remaining convictions unsafe if one is quashed

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction on Count 1 was unsafe due to the late disclosure of evidence undermining the credibility of the only independent witness corroborating the complainant's account; the remaining convictions were safe as the fresh evidence and disclosure issues did not materially affect the evidence on those counts, and the cross-admissibility directions did not render the other convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; conviction on Count 1 quashed; appeal refused on Counts 2-12.

Orders

  • Conviction on Count 1 quashed as unsafe.
  • Leave to appeal refused on Counts 2 to 12.