Evidence of the proper background to the offence was normally admissible, even if this revealed previous offences by the defendant, and despite the fact that such offences might not be admissible on a similar fact basis. Where the jury could not obtain a proper understanding of the case without such material it should be admitted. ‘It is apparent that the judgment in Percival was directed to the summing-up in that particular case. We find in the judgment no attempt by the Court to lay down principles of general application in relation to how judges should sum up in cases of delay and we accordingly would wish to discourage the attempts being made, with apparently increasing frequency, in applications and appeals to this Court to rely on Percival as affording some sort of blueprint for summings-up in cases of delay. It affords no such blueprint. Indeed in this area, as in so many others, prescription by this Court as to the precise terms of a summing-up is best avoided. Trial judges should tailor their directions to the circumstances of the particular case. In a case where there have been many years of delay between the alleged offences and trial, a clear warning will usually be desirable as to the impact which this may have had on the memories of witnesses, and as to the difficulties, which may have resulted for the defence. The precise terms of that warning and its relationship to the burden and standard of proof can be left to the good sense of trial judges with appropriate help and guidance from the Judicial Studies Board.’
Judges:
Rose LJ
Citations:
Times 02-Sep-1999, [2000] 1 Crim App R 49
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Pettman CACD 2-May-1985
Background evidence is admissible ‘Where it is necessary to place before the jury evidence of part of a continual background of history relevant to the offence charged in the indictment and without the totality of which the account placed before the . .
Cited – Regina v Percival CACD 19-Jun-1998
There was an additional burden on a judge in a case involving very old allegations of sexual abuse to use his imprimatur to emphasise to the jury the additional difficulties faced by a defendant and the high burden of proof. . .
Cited 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85383