V, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 1901 (27 July 2006)

V, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 1901 (27 July 2006)

The trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination and/or evidence regarding the Lymington incident, as there was a sufficient evidential basis for asserting the allegation was false. However, this error did not render the convictions unsafe given the overall evidence and the jury's knowledge of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 1901
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: V
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Cross Examination, Bad Character Evidence, False Allegations, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Cross Examination Bad Character Evidence False Allegations Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

R

Respondent

V

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination and/or evidence of allegedly false allegations by the complainant under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the convictions are safe given the exclusion of such evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination and/or evidence regarding the Lymington incident, as there was a sufficient evidential basis for asserting the allegation was false. However, this error did not render the convictions unsafe given the overall evidence and the jury's knowledge of the complainant's character and behaviour. The rulings regarding the McDonald's and teacher incidents were correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions upheld
  • Leave to appeal refused on grounds outside those granted