R v Christie
1914 · AC 545
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Christie was charged with indecent on a boy of about five. Shortly afterwards the boy went with his mother to the accused, identified him, and described what he had done. The accused denied it. The question was what part of that encounter was admissible.
- Issue
- Is a complaint, or an identification made in the accused's presence, evidence of the truth of the complaint?
- Held
- The House of Lords held that the boy's act of identification, and what was said and done in the accused's presence, including his denial, could be proved as part of the identification. A statement admitted only as a complaint is not of the complainant.
- Principle
- A recent complaint in a sexual case is admitted to show consistency, and to negative consent where consent is in issue. It is not independent evidence that the crime occurred.
- Why it matters
- Read it with R v Whitehead. Consistency is not corroboration.
Words and Latin in this note
- Corroboration
- Independent evidence that confirms a witness in a material particular and implicates the accused. One witness is enough for most charges. Some offences fail without corroboration, and some witnesses call only for a warning. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.