Regina v Smith, D: CACD 21 Dec 2005

The defendant appealed his conviction for five counts of gross indecency with a child, complaining that the court had admitted as evidence of propensity, the fact that other allegations had been made against him.
Held: The allegations were admissible as evidence of propensity, through section 10(1)(d), but through 10(1)(c) as ‘important explanatory evidence. Just what weight should be attached would then properly be a matter for the jury. The principle was that all relevant evidence should be admitted.


Scott Baker LJ, Gross LJ, Ramsey J


Times 02-Jan-2006


Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(3)


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Z (Prior acquittal) HL 22-Jun-2000
The defendant on a charge of rape had been tried and acquitted of the rape of different women on three previous occasions in three separate trials. The prosecution wished to call those three complainants to give similar fact evidence in support of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.237470