DPP v P
1991 · 2 AC 447
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- A father was charged with rape and incest against two daughters, over several years. The features relied on as similar were the use of force and parental discipline, payment for abortions, and the mother's acquiescence. The judge admitted the evidence of each daughter on the counts concerning the other. The Court of Appeal held that these were the stock-in-trade of an incestuous father, not a striking similarity, and quashed the convictions.
- Issue
- Must there be a striking similarity before is admitted?
- Held
- No. The House of Lords restored the convictions. Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC said striking similarity is only one way of reaching the necessary probative value. The essential question is whether the probative force is sufficiently great to make it just to admit the evidence, notwithstanding the prejudice.
- Principle
- The test is positive probative value weighed against prejudice. Identity cases will often need a striking similarity. Other cases may not.
- Why it matters
- It is the last similar-fact case in this chapter. R v H followed it. This chapter does not go on to later statutory reforms.
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.