R V D(N), P(A), U(S) COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION 1ST JULY 2011
FACTS:-
D had been convicted on two counts contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. P was convicted on two counts contract to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Indecency with Children Act 1960. U was convicted of three counts contrary to the 1956 Act.
The issue before the Court of Appeal related to Section 10(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That was whether, when a Defendant was charged with the sexual abuse of a child, evidence of possession of indecent photographs of children was capable of being admitted as bad character evidence to demonstrate a sexual interest in children.
HELD:-
The Court of Appeal said that evidence of possession of indecent photos was not evidence that the Defendant demonstrated the practice of committing sexual abuse or assault. However proof of propensity was not limited to the commission of the same kind of offence but could include any evidence that made it more likely the defendant had behaved as charged. Therefore such evidence was capable of being adduced at trial to demonstrate a propensity for offences involving the abuse of children.
FACTS:-
D had been convicted on two counts contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. P was convicted on two counts contract to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Indecency with Children Act 1960. U was convicted of three counts contrary to the 1956 Act.
The issue before the Court of Appeal related to Section 10(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That was whether, when a Defendant was charged with the sexual abuse of a child, evidence of possession of indecent photographs of children was capable of being admitted as bad character evidence to demonstrate a sexual interest in children.
HELD:-
The Court of Appeal said that evidence of possession of indecent photos was not evidence that the Defendant demonstrated the practice of committing sexual abuse or assault. However proof of propensity was not limited to the commission of the same kind of offence but could include any evidence that made it more likely the defendant had behaved as charged. Therefore such evidence was capable of being adduced at trial to demonstrate a propensity for offences involving the abuse of children.