White v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 10 August 1998 |
| Date | 10 August 1998 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Crime - Evidence - Corroboration - Defendant charged with sexual offences - Complainant giving evidence-in-chief of making complaints to persons not called to testify - Whether evidence of complaints admissible - Judge's failure to direct jury as to relevance of evidence of complaints - Whether misdirection
At the defendant's trial for rape and attempted buggery the prosecution relied on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant who said in her evidence-in-chief that after the incident she had told a friend what had happened, and that she had also told her aunt, her parents and a neighbour, who was a police officer, before eventually reporting the matter to the police rape unit. The prosecution did not call any of those five people as witnesses. The defence case was that the defendant and the complainant had had sexual intercourse with her consent. The judge in his summing up referred to the evidence of the complaints, and although he directed the jury that it did not constitute corroboration of the complainant's evidence he gave no directions as to the use they could make of the complaints. He told the jury that even though there was no corroboration they could convict the defendant if they believed the complainant's evidence. The defendant was convicted of rape and attempted buggery. The Court of Appeal of Jamaica by a majority dismissed his appeal against conviction.
On the defendant's appeal to the Judicial Committee: —
Held, allowing the appeal, that the complainant's evidence of the five complaints, being evidence of previous self-consistent statements, was not admissible to show her consistency or to negative consent, because the persons to whom the complaints had been made had not given evidence, or testified as to the terms thereof, nor was it admissible to rebut an allegation by the defence that the complainant's testimony was a recent invention since it had been given in chief before any such suggestion could be made; that although the mere mention by the complainant that she had spoken to the other people was not inadmissible, she should not have been allowed to say that she had told five people what had happened because the jury was bound to infer that she had made complaints in terms substantially the same as her evidence to the court; that, therefore, the admission of evidence that she had made statements to others necessitated a careful direction to the jury as to the limited value of that evidence and, in particular, that it could not be taken into account in assessing the credibility of the complainant; that the judge had failed to direct the jury adequately on the use that could be made of the complaints, and leaving it open to them to take the view that they could regard that evidence as confirming the complainant's credibility amounted to a misdirection; and that, accordingly, since the prosecution case depended entirely on the complainant's credibility it was impossible to apply the proviso and the defendant's conviction would be quashed (post, pp. 995G–H, 996D–E, 997B, 998B–C, 999B, 1000A).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Fox v. General Medical Council [
Nominal Defendant v. Clements (
Reg. v. Fletcher (unreported), 25 November 1996;
Reg. v. Kincaid [
Reg. v. Lillyman [
Reg. v. Wallwork (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Beatty v. Cullingworth (
Corke v. Corke & Cook [1958] P. 93; [
Hopson v. The Queen (
Mayers v. The Queen [
Reg. v. Beattie (
Reg. v. H. (unreported), 8 July 1997; C.A. No. 113/97;
Reg. v. Halstead (unreported), 30 March 1998;
Reg. v. Jarvis (unreported), 8 November 1990,
Reg. v. Le Roche (unreported), 15 December 1993; C.A. No. 240/93;
Reg. v. P. (unreported), 10 July 1989,
Reg. v. Stroner (
Reg. v. Valentine [
Reg. v. Watson (unreported), 12 December 1991,
Reg. v. Weekes [
Reg. v. Wright (
Rex v. Coulman (
Rex v. Lee (
Rex v. Osborne [
Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor [
Appeal (No. 12 of 1998) with leave of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica by the defendant, Kory White, from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica (Gordon J.A. and Walker J.A.(Ag.), Rattray P. dissenting) given on 27 January 1997 dismissing his appeal against his conviction of rape and attempted buggery on 24 November 1995 before Harrison J. and a jury in the Home Circuit Court, Kingston.
On 27 July 1998 Lord Hoffmann announced that the appeal would be allowed and the conviction set aside for reasons to be given later.
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
Richard Small and Stephen Shelton (both of the Jamaican Bar) for the defendant.
Glen Andrade Q.C., Director of Public Prosecutions, Jamaica, and Kent Pantry Q.C., Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Jamaica, for the Crown.
10 August. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Lord Hoffmann.
On 27 July 1998 their Lordships indicated that they would humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be allowed and the conviction set aside and that they would deliver their reasons later. Their Lordships now set out the reasons for the decision which they have reached.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica of 27 January 1997 (Gordon J.A. and Walker J.A.(Ag.), Rattray P. dissenting) dismissing an appeal from convictions for rape and attempted buggery before Harrison J. and a jury. The principal ground of appeal is that the judge did not give the jury adequate directions about how they should treat the complainant's evidence that she had made several statements shortly after the incident to various people, telling them what had happened.
The case for the prosecution rested entirely upon the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant Keisha Anderson. At the time of the incident she was 19 and the defendant was 19. In early May 1994 they met on a street corner where he engaged her in conversation and gave her his telephone number. She rang the defendant a couple of days later. Afterwards they spoke again...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Spooner; R v S
...seem to have been sound in principle and according to which the procedure contemplated by Lord Goddard would have been inadmissible" 22 In White v R [1998] UKPC 38, [1999] AC 210 (on an appeal from Jamaica), Lord Hoffman, giving the judgment of the Board, after referring to Lillyman, observ......
-
Shaban Ahmed V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...the complainer clearly denied making it (MacDonald v HM Advocate 2004 S.C.C.R. 100, per Lord MacLean at paras [9]-[10] cf. White v R [1999] 1 Cr.App.R. 153, per Lord Hoffmann at page 157). Muldoon v Herron 1970 J.C. 30 was not authority for the contrary proposition: essential to the court's......
- Hml v R; Sb v R; Oae v R
-
Gedeon v Commissioner of NSW Crime Commission
...[310]. 59 Reasons of Gleeson CJ at [37]. 60 As was the case in the trial of HML; see reasons of Heydon J at [318]. 61 White v The Queen [1999] 1 AC 210 at 217 cited reasons of Heydon J at 62 cf reasons of Crennan J at [474]–[475]. 63 [2002] 1 AC 45 at 71 [55]. See also DS v Her Majesty's Ad......