The defendant faced specimen counts of rape and incest against each of his two daughters. The trial judge refused an application for separate trials in respect of the offences alleged against each daughter. The defendant was convicted.
Held: His appeal was allowed. The judge had erred in refusing separate trials.
Lord Lane CJ said that the court had looked in vain for features of similarity that was striking or that went beyond ‘the incestuous father’s ‘stock in trade” that were considered necessary if the evidence of offences against one daughter was to be admissible in relation to the offences alleged against the other. The prosecution appealed.
‘Similar facts’ is a shorthand term for identifiable common or related features of probative value going beyond mere coincidence. It is not appropriate to single out striking similarity as an essential element in every case. The essential feature of evidence which is to be admitted is that its probative force is sufficiently great to make it just to admit the evidence, not withstanding that it is prejudicial to the accused intending to show that he was guilty of another crime. ‘Once the principle is recognised, that what has to be assessed is the probative force of the evidence in question, the infinite variety of circumstances in which the question arises, demonstrates that there is no single manner in which this can be achieved. Whether the evidence has sufficient probative value to outweigh its prejudicial effect is a question of degree. Where the identity of the perpetrator is an issue, and evidence of this kind is important in that connection, obviously something in the nature of what has been called in the course of the argument a signature or other special feature will be necessary. To transpose this requirement to other situations where the question is whether a crime has been committed, rather than who did commit it, is to impose an unnecessary and improper restriction upon the application of the principle.’
The test of admissibility of similar fact evidence was set out. Lord Mackay LC: ‘From all that was said by the House in Reg v Boardman I would deduce the essential feature of evidence which is to be admitted is that its probative force in support of the allegation that an accused person committed a crime is sufficiently great to make it just to admit the evidence, notwithstanding that it is prejudicial to the accused in tending to show that he was guilty of another crime.’ While probative force may be derived from the striking similarity of the similar fact evidence this was not a precondition of admissibility: ‘Once the principle is recognised, that what has to be assessed is the probative force of the evidence in question, the infinite variety of circumstances in which the question arises, demonstrates that there is no single manner in which this can be achieved. Whether the evidence has sufficient probative value to outweigh its prejudicial effect must in each case be a question of degree.’
Lord Mackay LC
[1991] 93 Crim App R 267, [1991] 2 AC 447, [1991] 3 All ER 337, [1991] 3 WLR 161
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales PC 12-Dec-1893
The accused had been charged with the murder of an infant who had been given into their care by the child’s mother after payment of a fee. They appealed after admission of evidence that several other infants had been received by the accused persons . .
Cited – Regina v Boardman HL 1974
The defendant appealed the admission of similar fact evidence against him. Acts of buggery were alleged by a schoolmaster with boys in which the accused was the passive partner.
Held: In order to be admissible similar facts must bear a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Venn CACD 1-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed convictions for sexual assault against four young girls.
Held: The admissibility of ‘similar fact’ evidence depends upon the degree of its relevance. If only suggests propensity it is inadmissible. If it goes further and . .
Cited – Regina v Musquera CACD 1999
The court observed that, while the decision in DPP v P had eliminated the necessity to identify a striking similarity, it was still necessary to invoke some identifiable common feature or features constituting a significant connection and going . .
Cited – Osman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police CA 23-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence.
Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal . .
Cited – Regina v Randall HL 18-Dec-2003
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . .
Cited – Brizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
Limits to Requests for Adverse Inferences
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
Cited – Thomas v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis CA 28-Nov-1996
In an action for damages and false imprisonment, the defendant police officers sought to have introduced the claimant’s previous criminal record, which was expired under the 1974 Act.
Held: The judge had been correct not to follow practice in . .
Cited – Regina v Shanks CACD 19-Mar-2003
The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had . .
Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 28-Apr-2005
The claimant sought damages against the police, and wanted to bring in evidence of previous misconduct by the officers on a similar fact basis. They had been imprisoned and held for several years based upon admissions which they said they had . .
Cited – Steel v Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police 10-Feb-1993
The plaintiffs sued three police officers for malicious prosecution. Specific discovery of documents relating to the previous misconduct of one of these officers was refused.
Held: Appeal allowed. Confessions were the only evidence against the . .
Cited – Regina v B (Evidence: Propensity) CACD 27-Jan-1997
The defendant appealed his conviction for indecent assaults, denying that any assaults had taken place. He complained that the judge had allowed questioning about his sexual propensities.
Held: Propensity to acts is not admissible as evidence . .
Cited – Regina v Jan CACD 12-Oct-2006
After his conviction for causing a public nuisance, and for arson, the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The judge applied the section to decline to set a minimum tariff. He had set out on a large scale harassment campaign against former . .
Cited – Seaton v Regina CACD 13-Aug-2010
The defendant had been accused of recent fabrication of evidence, having given evidence in court which varied from that given in interview on arrest. The crown had commented on his failure to call his solicitor to give evidence. The defendant said . .
Cited – Mitchell, Regina v SC 19-Oct-2016
Appeal against conviction for murder. Evidence was agreed with her representatives as to previous acts using knives, but was presented despite withdrawal by her of her consent. The prosecution now appealed against the quashing of the conviction.
Criminal Evidence
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.181002
