The defendant appealed against his convictions for the sexual assault of a child, saying that the court had wrongly admitted evidence of a previous conviction for possession of an indecent photograph. That conviction had been on an agreed basis and had resulted in a conditional discharge. The prosecution here had put in that conviction on a different basis.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The acceptance or at least the non-contradiction of the basis of plea in 2009 does not create any kind of issue estoppel between the Crown and the defendant, since no such principle exists in English criminal law. This is not a double jeopardy case, any more than Z was. The appellant cannot of course be re-sentenced for the child pornography offence. But Judge Ticehurst was right to rule that it could be admitted, as evidence of misconduct, in the trial which is the subject of this appeal, and was entitled to exercise his discretion as he did. The appellant’s conviction for the offences against A is safe. ‘
Bean LJ, Stewart J, Collier QC HHJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 2585
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina 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: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540493
