S, R v

S, R v

The trial judge erred in excluding the evidence of Mr Dildar and Ms Bean, as it constituted admissible non-defendant bad character evidence with substantial probative value on the central issue of the complainant's credibility. The exclusion of this evidence rendered the conviction unsafe.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Non Defendant Bad Character, Admissibility of Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses, Sexual Offences, Cross Examination Limitations
Criminal Law Evidence Bad Character Evidence Non Defendant Bad Character Admissibility of Evidence Credibility of Witnesses Sexual Offences Cross Examination Limitations

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

S

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in excluding non-defendant bad character evidence relevant to the complainant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the excluded evidence had substantial probative value under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 barred the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in excluding the evidence of Mr Dildar and Ms Bean, as it constituted admissible non-defendant bad character evidence with substantial probative value on the central issue of the complainant's credibility. The exclusion of this evidence rendered the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction for rape quashed