R v H

Facts

H was charged with sexual offences against more than one child. The evidence of each child was admitted on the counts concerning the others. The defence said DPP v P did not apply, and that striking similarity was still required.

Issue

Did DPP v P change the test, or was it confined to its own facts?

Held

The House of Lords applied P. Striking similarity is not a separate condition. The question is whether the probative force of the evidence is strong enough to make it just to admit it, notwithstanding the prejudice. It was, in this case.

Principle

P is the test. Later cases in this chapter do not go back to a closed list of categories.

Why it matters

The account stops at P and at H. It does not teach the later statutory reforms of bad-character evidence.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.