DPP v Boardman
1975 · AC 421
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Boardman was the headmaster of a language school and boarding house. Several boys said that he had woken them at night and invited them to take the active role in buggery with him. He was on counts involving two of the boys. Each boy's evidence had been treated as admissible on the other count. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.
- Issue
- When may the evidence of one complainant be used to support another?
- Held
- The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. Makin was not overruled. The evidence was admissible because its probative force was so strong, and the similarity so striking, that to treat the accounts as coincidence would be an affront to common sense.
- Principle
- is admitted when its probative force justifies the prejudice. Striking similarity is the measure Boardman used. The old categories are illustrations, not a closed list.
- Why it matters
- Rance and Scarrott warn against using the phrase as a formula. DPP v P takes that warning into a holding.
Words and Latin in this note
- Similar fact evidence
- Evidence of misconduct other than the offence charged. It is not admitted merely to show a criminal disposition. It is admitted if its probative force is strong enough to outweigh the prejudice. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.