R v Hansen

The appeal in R v Hansen concerns the admissibility of evidence used in a trial involving multiple counts of sexual offences. The appellant was jointly charged with another individual, Mr Roach, on the first three counts, while the remaining counts were against the appellant alone. The appellant argued that the trial judge did not adequately direct the jury on how to use the evidence from the joint counts when considering the remaining counts against the appellant alone. The appellant contended that the trial judge should have warned the jury that if they did not find a common purpose between the appellant and Mr Roach, the evidence could not be used against the appellant in respect of the remaining counts. Alternatively, the jury should have been directed that the evidence was only evidence from which it might be inferred that the appellant had a sexual interest in the victim.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the use of evidence from the joint counts against the appellant alone and if the trial judge should have warned the jury that if they did not find a common purpose between the appellant and Mr Roach, the evidence could not be used against the appellant in respect of the remaining counts. The court considered whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient and whether it was necessary to provide further direction on the use of evidence from the joint counts against the appellant alone. The court also considered whether the trial judge should have warned the jury that if they did not find a common purpose between the appellant and Mr Roach, the evidence could not be used against the appellant in respect of the remaining counts.

The court found that while it would have been preferable if the trial judge had identified the evidence led in respect of counts one to three which was admissible against the appellant in respect of the further counts, it was not necessary to do so. The court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient and that it was not necessary to provide further direction on the use of evidence from the joint counts against the appellant alone. The court also held that it was not necessary for the trial judge to warn the jury that if they did not find a common purpose between the appellant and Mr Roach, the evidence could not be used against the appellant in respect of the remaining counts.

No further orders were made by the court. The appeal was dismissed.