R v Samuel Boyles

JurisdictionNorthern Ireland
JudgeNicholson LJ
Judgment Date2004
Neutral Citation[2004] NICA 2
CourtCourt of Appeal (Northern Ireland)
Date04 February 2004
Neutral Citation No. [2004] NICA 2 Ref:
NICC4070
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
4/2/04
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
THE QUEEN
v
SAMUEL BOYLES
________
Before: Carswell LCJ, Nicholson LJ and Campbell LJ
________
NICHOLSON LJ
Introduction
[1] The applicant was tried before His Honour Judge Rodgers and a jury
on an indictment of seven counts of gross indecency with a child at Belfast
Crown Court in December 2002. He had pleaded Guilty to the first count on
10 October 2002; and he was re-arraigned on the first count out of seven on
the direction of the trial judge and pleaded Guilty to it again before the jury
on 3 December 2002. His trial on the other six counts commenced on 3
December 2002 and he was convicted by a majority verdict of the jury (10-2)
on 5 December 2002. He applies to this court for leave to appeal against these
convictions. Leave to appeal was refused by the single judge in May 2003.
Offences alleged against the applicant
[2] On the first count the Statement of Offence was: Gross Indecency with
a child contrary to section 22 of the Children and Young Persons Act
(Northern Ireland) 1968. The Particulars of Offence were that the applicant on
a date unknown between the 7th day of July 1991 and the 9th day of July 1994
in the County Court Division of Belfast committed an act of gross indecency
with or towards a child [referred to hereafter as Miss H]. This count related to
the first allegation of gross indecency made by Miss H. The next five counts
were specimen counts. The second and third counts related to allegations of
gross indecency between the 7th day of July 1991 and the 9th day of July 1992.
2
The fourth and fifth counts related to a period between the 7th day of July
1992 and the 9th day of July 1993. The sixth count related to a period between
the 7th day of July 1993 and the 9th day of July 1994. The seventh count related
to the final allegation of gross indecency made by Miss H.
Preliminary application before the trial
[3] Before the trial began Mr Larkin QC on behalf of the applicant
submitted to the trial judge that as the applicant had pleaded Guilty to the
first count he should not be required to plead Guilty before the jury on this
count and the evidence on it should be excluded from the consideration of the
jury in reaching their verdicts on the other six counts. The trial judge rejected
this application.
Trial Judge’s ruling
[4] Following submissions by counsel on 2 December the trial judge stated
that there was an allegation by the injured party of a continuous pattern of
abuse of a similar nature. The applicant had always admitted that there was a
single, isolated incident. To remove count 1 from the jury would be to render
the evidence in the case artificial, and in particular prevent the injured party
from relating the whole of her evidence and prevent the defendant from fully
attacking that evidence.
[5] The question of prejudice would have to be dealt with in the charge to
the jury. He, therefore, would admit the plea of Guilty to count 1 in front of
the jury and indicated that he thought that the applicant should be re-
arraigned so as to plead Guilty to count 1 in front of the jury. On 3 December
before the trial commenced he mentioned two passages from Blackstone’s
Criminal Practice 2002 to which he had been referred that morning. The first
passage was at F12-16 under the heading `Previous Sexual Conduct and the
Same Transaction rule.’ The passage read:-
“It is clear that the prosecution may adduce
evidence regarding discreditable conduct by the
accused where such evidence is part of the
transaction under consideration (see F12.21 to
F12.23). Under this rule evidence of sexual acts or
advances other than those which are the subject of
the charge is frequently adduced to show the true
nature of the relationship between the parties, a
practice which may be regarded as an acceptable
and inevitable form of evidence of `guilty passion’
(see, eg, Ball [1911] AC 47, and F12.15). In DPP v
Boardman [1975] AC 421, for example, evidence of
the accused’s previous approaches to a boy with

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • DPP v McNeill
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 8 Abril 2011
    ......As noted in R v Boyles the trial judge should direct the jury not to rely on the background evidence to support the evidence on each of the specific counts. Judge ......
  • DPP v Gerald McNeill
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 31 Julio 2007
    ...W 2003 EWCA CRIM 3024 (TRANSCRIPT NOT AVAILABLE) R v PHILIPS 2003 AER (D) 218 (APR) R v CAMPBELL UNREP 2005 EWCA CRIM 248 R v BOYLES UNREP 2004 NICA 2 LAW COMMISSION REPORT LAW COM NO 273 EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 2001 PARA 10.1 LOWERY v QUEEN 1974 AC 85 R v B 1997 C......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT