Two offences can constitute a series of offences, but there has to be some nexus between the offences. Lord Pearson said: ‘In my opinion, however, it is important to notice that there has to be a series of offences of a similar character. For this purpose there has to be some nexus between the offences. Counsel criticised the wording of passages in judgments appearing to say that there cannot be similarity of character without a nexus. But I think this criticism, if it has any validity, applies only to the wording, and not to the substance, because when regard is had to the requirement of a series of similar offences it is right to look for a nexus. Nexus is a feature of similarity which in all the circumstances of the case enables the offences to be described as a series.’ The nexus requisite to establish a ‘series of offences of . . [a] similar character’ may be satisfied by the cross-admissibility of evidence’
As to the need if any for separate trials under the 1915 Act, Lord Pearson said: ‘The judge has no duty to direct separate trials under section 5(3) unless in his opinion there is some special feature of the case which would make a joint trial of the several counts prejudicial or embarrassing to the accused and separate trials are required in the interests of justice. In some cases the offences charged may be too numerous and complicated . . or too difficult to disentangle . . so that a joint trial of all the counts is likely to cause confusion and the defence may be embarrassed or prejudiced. In other cases objection may be taken to the inclusion of a count on the ground that it is of a scandalous nature and likely to arouse in the minds of the jury hostile feelings against the accused . . ‘
Judges:
Lord Pearson
Citations:
[1971] AC 29
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Kray CACD 1969
The court dealt with a case where prejudice was claimed on behalf of the defendant because of publicity before the trial. Lawton J said: ‘The drama of a trial almost always has the effect of excluding from recollection that which went before.’
Cited by:
Cited – Hamilton, Regina v CACD 16-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for outraging public decency. He had surreptitously filmed up the skirts of women in a supermarket. The offence was only discovered after the films were found on a search of his home for other material. The . .
Cited – Regina v KL CACD 22-Jan-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape and against his sentence. He complained that the judge had allowed two unconnected allegations to appear on the same indictment. He had also been convicted of the burglary of the complainant’s . .
Cited – JT v Regina CACD 12-Feb-2008
The defendant appealed against convictions for rape and perverting the course of justice. There had been a history between the parties of false allegations and of acting out rape fantasies. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.258847