Abstract
AN accused is charged with rape. He will claim that the complainant consented. The Crown can prove that on four previous occasions that selfsame accused has been tried on other counts of rape, but on all but one of them has been acquitted. The trial judge rules that, had the accused been convicted of all four earlier rapes, such evidence would have been admissible at the fifth trial under the similar fact evidence principles enunciated by the House of Lords in D.P.P. v. P [1991] 2 A.C. 447. The single earlier conviction, however, standing alone, does not qualify as admissible similar fact evidence. These, in essence, were the facts confronting the House of Lords in R. v. Z [2000] 3 W.L.R. 117, the general question for the House being: despite three of Z’s previous trials having resulted in acquittals, was the Crown entitled to lead evidence of all four earlier incidents, including testimony from the three complainants whose allegations had failed to persuade juries in the past?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
