Wayne, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 434 (09 March 2009)

Wayne, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 434 (09 March 2009)

The judge's refusal to permit cross-examination under s.41 was within the margin of judgment, as the previous behaviour was not sufficiently similar to the alleged offence, and the main purpose of such cross-examination would have been to impugn credibility. The admission of bad character evidence was justified as relevant to propensity to use violence, with proper jury directions, and did not render the trial unfair. The conviction was safe.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Crim 434
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Wayne Lee Harris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial in Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, False Imprisonment, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Bad Character Evidence, Cross Examination of Complainant, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Section 101 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Rape False Imprisonment Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Bad Character Evidence Cross Examination of Complainant Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Section 101 Criminal Justice Act 2003

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Wayne Lee Harris

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial in Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing cross-examination of the complainant under s.41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting bad character evidence of the appellant's previous convictions

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's refusal to permit cross-examination under s.41 was within the margin of judgment, as the previous behaviour was not sufficiently similar to the alleged offence, and the main purpose of such cross-examination would have been to impugn credibility. The admission of bad character evidence was justified as relevant to propensity to use violence, with proper jury directions, and did not render the trial unfair. The conviction was safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed