R v Rance
1975 · 62 Cr App R 118
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Rance and Herron for one warning, and does not set out the charge. Widgery LCJ was asked to treat 'striking similarity' as if those words were a statute.
- Issue
- Is striking similarity a formula that must be recited before is admitted?
- Held
- No. Widgery LCJ said the phrase should not be over-weighted. The question is the probative force of the evidence, not whether a particular adjective is satisfied.
- Principle
- Boardman's language is a guide to the strength of the evidence. It is not a spell.
- Why it matters
- Scarrott says the same thing in different words: positive probative value, and a link to the charge, not mere repetition. DPP v P turns the 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.