R v Scarrott
1978 · QB 1016
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Scarrott was charged with a number of sexual offences against boys. The judge allowed the evidence of each complainant to be considered on the counts concerning the others. The defence said the incidents were not strikingly similar. They were, it was said, only repeated allegations of the same kind of offence.
- Issue
- Does repetition of similar allegations make them admissible?
- Held
- Not by itself. The Court of Appeal held that the evidence must have a positive probative value, and there must be a link between the evidence and the charge that goes beyond the fact that the accused is the sort of man who might do this. On the facts the evidence was properly admitted.
- Principle
- is not admitted because the stories sound alike. It is admitted because, taken together, they prove something that one story does not.
- Why it matters
- It is the step between Boardman and DPP v P. Rance is the warning not to over-use the phrase. Scarrott is the demand for a real link.
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.