R v BAR

The appellant was convicted on 17 counts of sexual misconduct against his stepdaughter, and on a further 7 counts of indecently dealing with another stepdaughter. The trial judge admitted evidence given by one girl in relation to counts relating to the other girl, which the appellant argued was inadmissible similar fact evidence. The appellant further argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the court of criminal appeal, which considered the admissibility of the similar fact evidence and the appropriateness of the sentence.

The court considered whether the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence, and whether the trial judge should have exercised a discretion to exclude the evidence. The court found that the evidence was substantially similar and should not have been admitted. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, but found that it was not. The court held that the trial judge erred in admitting the similar fact evidence and quashed the convictions on counts 18 to 24. The court ordered a re-trial on those counts and refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence in respect of counts 1 to 17.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the convictions on counts 18 to 24 were quashed. A re-trial was ordered on those counts. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence in respect of counts 1 to 17 was refused. The court held that the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that evidence is admissible and that sentences are appropriate.