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 beyond mere propensity or coincidence. ‘It is certainly the case that when the issue is . . . that a particular witness is lying, a lesser degree of similarity between the two allegations is likely to suffice to make them cross-admissible than when the issue is, for example, the identity of the defendant . . ..’ but ‘ . . it is still necessary to invoke some common identifiable feature or features constituting a significant connection and going beyond mere propensity of co-incidence.’
Judges:
Potter LJ
Citations:
[1999] Crim LR 857
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v P HL 1991
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: . .
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 – 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.
Evidence
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.181003
