|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
DPP v P (1991)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
[1991] 2 AC 447 (HL). The defendant was tried and convicted of two indictments of
rape against his
two daughters. The basis of his appeal was that the daughters had colluded in their
evidence, and by allowing evidence from daughter to stand in the indictment against
the other, the jury had been unduly prejudicted by the cumulative evidence. The
defendant argued that the test laid down by the HouseOfLords in DPPVBoardman1975,
for cross-admissibility of multiple allegations, was that there should be a striking
similarity between the offences alleged (as the term `striking similarity' would be
understood when considering the admissibility of EvidenceOfDisposition). In fact,
in this case, the offences, although despicable if they were proved, were `commonplace'
rapes with no sriking features at all.
The House of Lords held that, although `striking similarity' was one of the criteria
by which the cross-admissibility could be determined, it was not the only one.
Whether the evidence had sufficient probative value to overcome the inevitable
prejudice it would create against the defendant was to be determined on the facts
of each case. In the present case, the large number of points of similarity
between the offences, even though these similarities were not in themselves particular
striking, was sufficient that their probative value was very high.
However, the other safeguard set out in Boardman was not disturbed -- it was
still necessary that the judge rule out all possibility of collusion between the
complainants before admitting the evidence. This safeguard was itself abolished
in RVH1995.
CaseLaw
EvidenceLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|