Sexual History Evidence: Late Disclosure and Relevance
| Author | Adam Jackson,Brian Brewis,Michael Stockdale |
| DOI | 10.1350/1740-5580-77.1.13 |
| Published date | 01 February 2013 |
| Date | 01 February 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal pointed out in McAndrew-Bingham, ‘if the offence is
properly charged, then the evidence supporting it should reflect its
nature rather than some other kind of offence’ (R v McAndrew-Bingham
[1999] 2 Cr App R 293 at 299). In the present case the defendant
threatened to burn down the house with the children inside, which was
not simply a threat against property. He could have been charged with
making a threat to kill, contrary to s. 16 of the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861, either instead of the criminal damage offence or in
the alternative. The defendant’s intention that his wife should fear that
he would carry out the threat could be inferred from her evidence that
he turned on the portable gas igniter, hobs and oven. Making a threat to
kill is a specified offence as it obviously involves a threat of injury, so the
difficulties that ultimately resulted in the case being stopped would have
been averted.
Michael Stockdale and Natalie Wortley
Sexual History Evidence: Late Disclosure and Relevance
R vT [2012] EWCA Crim 2358
Keywords Previous sexual behaviour; Relevance; Late disclosure; Ex-
clusion; Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s. 41
The appellant was 15 when he was convicted of raping a 13-year-old
girl. They attended the same school. On 11 November 2010 the appel-
lant was walking the complainant towards her home when, it was
alleged, he sexually assaulted her in a nearby park. The complainant
informed a friend of the assault immediately upon returning home and
another friend the next day, but she did not report the matter until 5
January 2011 when, in a distressed state, she informed a support
teacher. On the day following the assault (12 November 2010) it was
alleged that the appellant told the same person to whom the complain-
ant spoke immediately after the assault that he had engaged in sexual
intercourse with the complainant. The appellant gave a no comment
interview, but his defence was that he had not had sexual contact with
the complainant and had only walked a short distance with the com-
plainant at her request and then left her to meet his girlfriend.
There was no mention in the appellant’s defence statement of any
motive for the complainant to lie. The appellant sought leave from the
judge, well in advance of the trial, to adduce evidence of a previous
complaint by the complainant pursuant to s. 41 of the Youth Justice and
Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (the 1999 Act).
After the complainant had given evidence in the form of a video
interview, the appellant sought leave to adduce in cross-examination a
photograph that had allegedly been sent to the appellant by the com-
plainant. Counsel for the appellant described the photograph as being
Sexual History Evidence: Late Disclosure and Relevance
13
To continue reading
Request your trial