R v E

The Court of Appeal in this case was asked to consider an appeal against conviction brought by the appellant, who had been found guilty of four counts of indecently dealing with a girl under the age of 16 years with an aggravating circumstance that she was under 14 at the time of the offences. The legal issues that the Court had to determine included whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, whether the summing-up directions to the jury were adequate, and whether the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellant's appeal hinged on several grounds, including the alleged insufficiency of the trial judge's directions regarding the use of evidence of good character and the lack of a proper warning about the difficulties of convicting based on evidence given many years after the events in question.

The Court found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence of uncharged acts or the evidence of the complainant's brother, as it was relevant to the nature of the relationship between the parties and the context of the charged offences. However, the Court did find fault with the trial judge's directions regarding the use of evidence of good character, stating that the directions were insufficient as they did not cover all aspects of how such evidence might be used by the jury. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial judge had failed to give a proper Longman direction, which is a warning to the jury about the dangers of convicting based on evidence given many years after the events in question, especially when there are objective facts that contradict the complainant's evidence. This failure was significant given the 19-year delay in bringing the matter to court and the substantial evidence led by the defence that contradicted the complainant's evidence.

The Court concluded that the inadequate summing-up meant that the appeal must be allowed. However, given the appellant's age, ill health, and the significant passage of time since the alleged offences, the Court decided that it was undesirable to order a new trial. Instead, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions.