Regina v Chauhan: CACD 1981

Evidence of a complainant’s distress is not admissible unless the complainant is unaware of being observed, and if the distress is exhibited at the time of, or shortly after, the offence itself, or in circumstances which appear to implicate the accused. ‘In normal cases, however, the weight to be given to distress varies infinitely, and juries should be warned that, although it may amount to corroboration they must be fully satisfied that there is no question of it having been feigned’

Citations:

[1981] 73 Crim App R 232

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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 . .
AppliedRegina v Romeo CACD 9-Sep-2003
The defendant appealed his conviction for sex offences, saying the court had misdirected the jury as to the weight to be given to the distress shown by the complainant as corroboration of her allegation.
Held: Old cases should be looked at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.181005